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 the Council refused her Blue Badge application without properly considering the medical evidence she provided about her mobility difficulties. She says the Council relied too heavily on the mobility assessment and did not adequately reflect the day-to-day impact of her condition.

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. Miss X said the Council did not properly consider her medical evidence and relied too heavily on a brief assessment. The evidence shows the Council reviewed her application, the medical information she provided, and invited her to attend a mobility assessment carried out by a trained assessor.
8. During the assessment, the Council observed Miss X walking and found she was able to walk independently without very considerable difficulty. It also considered whether her condition was permanent and noted there was no confirmed diagnosis at that stage. The assessment record included details of the mobility aids Miss X uses in her home.
9. Miss X later referred to further medical investigations. The Council considered this but said there was still no evidence the condition was permanent and advised she could reapply if further medical evidence became available.
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 consider whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. The Council applied the correct criteria, carried out a mobility assessment, and considered the information available to it before deciding Miss X did not meet the threshold for a Blue Badge. This was a decision it was entitled to make.
11. We will not investigate Miss 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 Miss 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