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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his Blue Badge application. He believes the Council assessed both of his appeals too quickly and did not follow the government guidance on hidden disabilities. He says the Council used the wrong criteria and treated his condition as a physical disability rather than a hidden one.

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. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge and was not automatically eligible, so the Council considered the application under the “subject to further assessment” criteria in the Department for Transport guidance.
8. The Council reviewed the information provided with the original application, including medical and social care records. After refusing the application, it considered further information submitted at the first appeal.
9. Mr X later submitted a second appeal, which included a detailed autism assessment. The Council reviewed this assessment and noted it recorded low risk to self and low risk to others and did not identify very considerable psychological distress when walking.
10. The Council explained that a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) alone does not meet the criteria and that eligibility depends on evidence of the specific impacts described in the guidance
11. 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 Mr X’s application based on the information and evidence he provided and decided there was not sufficient evidence to show he currently qualifies for a blue badge. It explained its decision in its appeal outcome letter. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of procedural fault by the Council to question the merits of its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman