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 to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council refused his Blue Badge application following an inaccurate mobility assessment and failed to offer a face‑to‑face reassessment, relying instead on a review. He says the assessment did not properly consider his pain, fatigue and fluctuating symptoms arising from his medical conditions. He feels the decision was subjective and based on incorrect measurements.

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 evidence shows the Council assessed Mr X’s application using an in-person mobility assessment conducted by an expert assessor. This considered his walking ability, including distance, pace, balance and breathlessness. Following the assessment, the Council decided Mr X did not experience “very considerable difficulty whilst walking” to the level required by the guidance.
8. Mr X disagrees with the assessment and says his symptoms are more severe than observed. However, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not decide whether the Council’s judgement was right or wrong, but whether it followed a proper process. In this case, the Council was entitled to rely on the findings of the mobility assessment as part of its decision making.
9. Mr X requested a review of the decision. As no additional supporting evidence was submitted, the Council reasonably relied on the information already available and decided there was no basis to overturn the original decision. Although Mr X expected the Council to reassess him in person, there is no legal duty for the Council to do so.
10. The Council considered the information available, used an appropriate assessment method, applied the correct eligibility criteria, and explained its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it reached its decision to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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