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 wrongly refused his Blue Badge renewal. He says his health condition has worsened since he was previously granted a badge, requiring surgery, additional medication, and causing increased mobility difficulties. He believes the Council failed to properly consider this evidence, including recent falls and the impact on his daily life and work.

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 considered Mr X’s application and the medical evidence he provided, including information about his health condition and treatment. It noted clinical evidence indicating his symptoms had improved following treatment and surgery.
8. The Council decided the evidence did not show Mr X experienced inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking, as required by the criteria. It explained its decision and gave Mr X the opportunity to provide further information.
9. Mr X appealed the decision. The Council reconsidered the application, including the evidence provided. It relied on medical information and an independent mobility assessment, which found he could walk around 80 metres with mild to moderate difficulty and scored 9 points, below the threshold for eligibility.
10. The Council concluded Mr X did not meet the criteria for a Blue Badge and explained its reasons, including why other symptoms associated with his condition did not affect the decision.
11. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not decide whether the Council’s decision was right or wrong. Instead, we consider whether there was fault in how the decision was made. In this case, the Council considered the relevant evidence, obtained an independent assessment, applied the correct criteria, and gave reasons for its decision.
12. In the absence of evidence, the Council ignored relevant information, failed to follow the correct process, or made its decision in an unreasonable way, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
13. 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

14. 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