Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his blue badge application. 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.

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)
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))

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. 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. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing applicants’ eligibility for the badge.
7. The DfT guidance sets out what assessors may wish to consider when assessing a person’s mobility. 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. 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.

8. Mr X applied for a blue badge. The Council told Mr X the information he provided did not show he was eligible for a blue badge and so it invited him to attend an in-person assessment.
9. Mr X refused to attend an in-person assessment, saying it was not helpful in his wife’s blue badge application. Mr X wants the Council to instead ask his doctor for any relevant information.
10. The Council told Mr X it had considered his application in line with the relevant DfT guidance. It explained it cannot issue a blue badge to an applicant who does not meet the eligibility criteria. As Mr X decided not to attend the in-person assessment it reviewed the information he provided in his application. It confirmed that on the information provided Mr X does not currently meet the eligibility criteria for issuing of a blue badge.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council here in its consideration of Mr X’s application. It has considered, assessed and decided his application in line with the TfL guidance.
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 it followed to make its decision. In assessing and deciding Mr X’s application the Council took account of the relevant guidance and the information Mr X provided and, in line with the guidance, invited him to attend an assessment so that it could further assess his eligibility. There is no sign of fault in how it made its decision and so we cannot question it, even though 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 here to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman