Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue Ms X a Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council rejected her Blue Badge application. She said the Council incorrectly assessed her application.
2. She said the Council arranged an appointment for a Freedom Pass rather than a Blue Badge application. She said the Council had a lack of awareness about her condition and the process was not equipped to consider complex neurological disabilities.
3. She said being without a Blue Badge significantly reduces her independence. She wants the Council to reassess her application and refund £120 she paid for parking.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X made an application for the Council to reissue her Blue Badge. The Council rejected her application.
8. In its outcome letter the Council said it reviewed the evidence Ms X provided along with the video evidence it requested. It said she did not meet the criteria of very considerable difficulty whilst walking.
9. Ms X appealed the Council’s decision and submitted further evidence. The Council reviewed the supporting evidence and declined the application. The appeal outcome letter said the evidence did not confirm any incidents where Ms X had experienced very considerable difficulty when walking or a risk to self or others.
10. Ms X then attended a walking assessment. The assessment recorded that Ms X walked 120 meters at a slow pace. The Council wrote to Ms X and said she did not meet the Department for Transport (DfT) criteria.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council considered all the evidence available when it decided Ms X did not meet the criteria for a Blue Badge. It clearly set out its reasons as to why Ms X did not meet the criteria under the mobility or hidden disability criteria in its outcome and appeal response letters.
12. We are not an appeal body and only consider if there is fault in the way the Council made its decision. Ms X may disagree, but there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify our involvement.
13. Ms X said the Council arranged a mobility assessment under a Freedom Pass application and not a Blue Badge application. During my enquiries the Council clarified that the appointment email incorrectly said Freedom Pass which was a template error. It said the appointment was to assess if Ms X met the criteria for a Blue Badge which is reflected in the assessment document. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant out involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman