Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss 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. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her a Blue Badge was unfair and procedurally flawed. She says the Council failed to properly take account of the fluctuating nature of her rheumatoid arthritis and relied on a telephone assessment which could not accurately reflect her usual level of difficulty. She also says the Council relied on a narrow scoring system, dismissing the real impact of her pain, fatigue, and psychological distress.

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 is intended to help people with severe mobility problems, including some non‑visible conditions. Councils must only issue badges where applicants meet one or more of the eligibility criteria set out in legislation and national guidance.
7. Miss X applied for a Blue Badge under the combined physical and non‑visible eligibility criteria. The evidence shows the Council considered her application and supporting medical evidence, including information about her diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. As she did not automatically qualify, the Council referred her for an assessment with an independent expert assessor, in line with DfT guidance.
8. The expert assessor assessed Miss X’s walking ability and non‑visible disability using the national scoring framework. The assessment considered factors such as pain, manner of walking, speed, distance, breathlessness, and the need to stop. Miss X scored 22 points for physical mobility, where 24 points are required, and did not meet the threshold under the non‑visible criteria. On that basis, the Council refused her application.
9. Miss X appealed the decision, explaining that she experiences fluctuating symptoms, pain, fatigue, and distress, and that she pushed herself during the assessment. The Council reviewed her appeal, considered the points she raised, and explained why it did not change the outcome. It confirmed the assessment had been carried out in line with DfT guidance and that there was no new evidence showing Miss X met the eligibility criteria.
10. We are not an appeal body. We do not reassess an applicant’s mobility or substitute our view for that of a qualified assessor. Our role is to consider whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. In this case, the Council assessed Miss X using the correct process, relied on professional judgement from an independent assessor, applied the national criteria, and considered her appeal properly.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s 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