Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s eligibility decision relating to a Blue Badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her a blue badge. She says the Council did not accept she has conditions that affect her ability to complete journeys safely although she provided evidence. Miss B says having a blue badge would allow her to park closer to destinations, would help to reduce pain, minimise distress and risk. As an outcome Miss B wants the Council to approve her blue badge application.

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 impact 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 or continue 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. 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. 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.
7. Miss B applied for a Blue Badge and was not automatically eligible. The Council wrote to Miss B and said her application for a blue badge did not meet the criteria set out in the guidance. It said Miss B managed her condition by massage, physio exercise and pain medication. It also said Miss B had been referred to the hospital for further investigations. It told Miss B she could ask for a review of its decision. It also said Miss B could provide more information such as a letter or report from a medical professional, relative or carer which explained the severity and permanent nature of her disability and the impact this had on her mobility.
8. The Council reviewed Miss B’s blue badge application and medical information she had provided. An assessor completed a telephone assessment with Miss B as part of the overall assessment review process. The Council said clinical reasoning when deciding if Miss B was eligible for a blue badge.
9. The Council decided Miss B was not eligible for a blue badge because she did not have an enduring and substantial disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty walking as set out in the DfT guidance. It said she had not provided medical confirmation from medical professionals to confirm her ability to walk or how her ability to walk is affected by the conditions she described. It said if Miss B’s situation changed, she could reapply again in six months.
10. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. 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 whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. The Council assessed Miss B’s application based on the information and evidence she provided and decided there was not enough evidence to show she qualifies for a blue badge at that time. It explained its decision in its appeal outcome letter and told Miss B she could reapply again in six months if her situation changes.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman