Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a blue badge. He would like the Council to reverse its decision and issue him a badge.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

7. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge Scheme helps people with severe physical mobility problems, or other conditions affecting their mobility, to access goods and services. The guidance says councils must make sure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation.
8. There are two types of eligibility criteria:

• where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;
• where a person is eligible subject to further assessment, they have to fulfil one or more of three criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:
• drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and be unable to operate, or have considerable difficulty operating, all or some types of parking meter; or
• have been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring or substantial disability, which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk or experience very considerable difficulty walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress; or
• be at risk of serious harm when walking, or pose a serious risk of harm to any other person.

9. Mr X applied to the Council for a blue badge. The Council refused his application.
10. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision and provided additional information in support of his application.
11. The Council considered the information Mr X provided but upheld its original decision to refuse his application. It explained that whilst Mr X has some difficulties making a journey, the severity of his impairment does not currently meet the eligibility criteria for issuing of a blue badge.
12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. The Council assessed and decided Mr X’s application and appeal in line with the relevant DfT guidance and eligibility criteria and considered the information he provided in support of his application and appeal. It found he did not meet the criteria for issuing of a badge at this time and it clearly explained the reasons for its decision to Mr X
13. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the decision to decide if it was wrong, Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. If, as here, we consider there was no fault in the way the Council made its decision we cannot question it, even though Mr X disagrees with it.

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman