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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to renew his Blue Badge. He says the Council required him to meet criteria equivalent to the Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance or the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment, despite him being over pension age and unable to claim those benefits. Mr X says the Council relied on a GP medical declaration and did not carry out a physical assessment. He considers his GP does not understand how his condition affects his day‑to‑day mobility.

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. The Council assessed Mr X’s application against the eligibility criteria for people with mobility difficulties. It considered information about walking distance, walking speed, pain, symptoms, and mobility outside the home. It decided the information provided did not show his mobility difficulties were at a level comparable to the Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance or a score of eight points or more under the “moving around” component of Personal Independence Payment.
8. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision. The Council obtained medical information from his GP and considered this as part of the review. It decided the medical evidence did not demonstrate Mr X met the DfT eligibility threshold and confirmed its original decision.
9. 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.
10. The evidence shows the Council followed the relevant guidance, considered the available evidence, offered a review, and gave clear reasons for its decision. The Council was entitled to rely on the medical evidence available to it and was not required to depart from national guidance because of Mr X’s age.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman