Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her relative, Mr Y, a blue badge. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her relative, Mr Y, a blue badge. She says the assessment process was flawed and applied the wrong legal test and the matter has caused distress and hardship for Mr Y. She wants the Council to complete a fresh appeal and issue Mr Y 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 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. 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. An individual’s eligibility for a blue badge is considered in terms of being “eligible without further assessment” or eligible subject to further assessment”.
7. If a person receives the mobility component of Person Independence Payment (PIP) and has obtained 10 points specifically for descriptor E under the planning and following a journey activity, they are eligible for a blue badge without further assessment. Other points awarded under this activity do not qualify for automatic eligibility. Applicants who have not received points for Descriptor E of this activity may be eligible subject to further assessment.
8. As part of the Council’s blue badge assessment process, it issues a form to applicants which can be completed by any specialist health professionals involved in their care. The Council uses any information provided, in conjunction with information from other sources, to help inform its decision making.
9. The Council decided it needed to complete a further assessment for Mr Y, as he had not been awarded 10 points under PIP Descriptor E and did not qualify under any other automatic eligibility criteria. It issued Mr Y with the specialist information form and advised him to ask any specialist involved with his care to complete it. Mr Y was unable to complete the form because at the time of the assessment, he did not have any specialists involved in his care. Ms X says this is unfair as it excludes applicants who have GP- led care.
10. The Council assessed his application. Council records indicate it considered Mr Y’s application under the hidden disabilities criteria.
11. It considered Mr Y’s application form, diagnoses and supporting information. It decided that, based on the evidence provided, he was not eligible for a blue badge. Ms X appealed this decision, but the Council did not change its position.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
13. We will not investigate this complaint. Mr Y had not received points under the qualifying descriptor in his PIP award and so the decision to complete a further assessment appears correct. The Council appropriately assessed him according to the hidden disabilities criteria and considered the supporting information provided as part of its decision making. Any additional information provided by specialists may assist the Council, but it is not the only factor considered in its decision making. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council has considered Mr Y’s application to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman