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 no sign of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a blue badge. He says the short assessment was not sufficient to decide his eligibility for a badge and his GP fully supports his application. He has fluid around his pelvis. He can walk but is in constant pain. Mr X cannot drive as he needs an accessible space where he can fully open the car door to enable him to get in and out of the car.

Back to top

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)

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))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied to the Council for a blue badge. He provided evidence in support of his application and attended an in-person mobility assessment by an expert assessor.
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. The Council refused Mr X’s application. It considered the information he provided and the independent in-person mobility assessment but said these did not show Mr X currently meets the mobility eligibility criteria for issuing of a blue badge.
10. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. The Council considered the additional information Mr X provided, but it did not cause it to alter its decision that he is not currently eligible for a blue badge.
11. 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. It has assessed and decided Mr X’s application in line with the relevant DfT guidance, the in-person assessment and the information Mr X provided. Whilst I note Mr X says his GP supported the application, the decision on eligibility is for the Council to make via the information provided and the expert assessor.
12. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider, as here, that it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr X disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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