Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms 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. Ms X complains the Council refused her Blue Badge application without properly considering her eligibility under the non-visible disability criteria. She says the Council relied on her personal independence payment (PIP) award and did not assess the impact of her autism and psychological distress when undertaking journeys.

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. Ms X said the Council did not consider her eligibility under the non-visible disability criteria when refusing her application based on her PIP award. The evidence shows the Council had previously assessed Ms X’s application under the non-visible disability criteria, including a review by an independent assessor, and decided she did not meet the eligibility threshold for a Blue Badge.
8. Ms X later made a further application under the PIP (automatic eligibility) route. The Council refused this application because her PIP award did not meet the criteria for automatic eligibility.
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 consider whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. The Council was entitled to determine the PIP route based on the descriptor alone. Given it had recently carried out a full assessment under the non-visible disability criteria and there is no evidence of significant new information, it was not required to carry out a further assessment.
10. While Ms X disagrees with the decision and considers the Council should have reassessed him, this goes to the merits of the decision. There is not enough evidence the Council failed to follow the required process.
11. We will not investigate Ms 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 Ms 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