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-making to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly apply the Department for Transport Blue Badge guidance and fairly consider his evidence. He says that after a telephone assessment the Council reduced his difficulties to “some anxiety when finding a car parking space” and did not explain why it rejected his claimed psychological distress and risk of harm when walking.

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 whose conditions make it difficult for them to make journeys. Councils must only issue Blue Badges to people who meet the eligibility rules in law. This includes people who experience very severe psychological distress when walking or who are at risk of serious harm when walking.
7. Mr X complained that the Council did not properly consider the evidence he provided when deciding his Blue Badge application and appeals. He said the Council did not fairly take account of the psychological distress he experiences during journeys or the risk he believes this poses when walking.
8. The evidence shows the Council considered Mr X’s application, written information and medical evidence, and arranged a telephone assessment to help make its decision. After this, the Council decided Mr X did not meet the eligibility criteria for a Blue Badge under the discretionary assessment route.
9. Mr X made a second appeal. The Council reviewed the information already provided, including the telephone assessment and his appeal submissions. In its second appeal response, the Council accepted that Mr X experiences anxiety when finding and using parking spaces but decided the evidence did not show very severe psychological distress or that he met the criteria at that time.
10. We are not an appeal body and cannot decide whether the Council’s judgement was right or wrong. Our role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process. The Council considered the relevant guidance, gathered information through an assessment, reviewed the case at second appeal, and explained its decision.
11. Mr X was later awarded a Blue Badge automatically after his Personal Independence Payment award changed. This happened after the second appeal decision and does mean there was fault in the Council’s earlier decision, which was based on the information available at the time.
12. As the Council followed the correct process and considered Mr X’s application and appeals in line with the guidance, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. We will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman