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

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council did not follow Department for Transport guidance when it refused her Blue Badge application. She says the Council failed to properly consider how her visual impairment affects her safety when travelling and did not give sufficient weight to specialist medical evidence. She disagrees with the Council’s conclusion that she did not meet the eligibility criteria.

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. Mrs X was not automatically eligible for a Blue Badge. Under the guidance for England, automatic eligibility based on Personal Independence Payment only applies where an applicant scores exactly 10 points under descriptor E of the “planning and following journeys” activity. Mrs X scored 12 points and therefore required further assessment. The Council correctly identified this and progressed the application under the discretionary criteria.
8. The evidence shows that, at appeal stage, the Council carried out a further assessment of Mrs X’s application. It sought advice from an expert assessor who reviewed the application form and the supporting evidence. The assessor considered the impact of Mrs X’s visual impairment on her ability to navigate road crossings and car parks and whether the evidence demonstrated very considerable difficulty, risk of serious harm, or overwhelming psychological distress when making journeys.
9. The Council explained why it considered the medical evidence provided did not demonstrate that Mrs X met the eligibility criteria. It gave reasons for placing limited weight on older medical information and explained that later evidence did not describe functional impact on journey‑making sufficient to meet the guidance. The Council also explained what type of further evidence would be relevant if Mrs X wished to reapply.
10. 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.
11. The evidence shows the Council applied the relevant guidance, undertook a further assessment at appeal stage, relied on advice from a suitably qualified professional, and explained its reasons for the decision.
12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X’s Blue Badge application and appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman