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 the Council refused his Blue Badge application. He says he has a long-term medical condition and previously had a Blue Badge. He says the Council did not properly assess the impact of his condition and that the assessment process did not allow the assessor to fully consider the difficulties he experiences. He does not understand why he no longer qualifies for a Blue Badge.

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. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider the effect of his condition on his ability to travel. The evidence shows the Council considered his application and supporting medical evidence. It then referred the application to an independent medical expert assessor.
8. The assessor considered Mr X's application, supporting evidence and the difficulties he reported before concluding he did not meet the eligibility criteria for a Blue Badge.
9. Mr X appealed the decision and provided further information about how his conditions affect him. The Council reviewed the appeal and considered the additional evidence before maintaining its decision. The fact Mr X previously had a Blue Badge does not mean the Council must award a further badge when considering a new application.
10. We are not an appeal body. We do not decide whether Mr X should receive a Blue Badge. Our role is to consider whether there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision. The evidence shows the Council considered Mr X’s application, supporting medical evidence and appeal submissions before reaching its decision. We have not seen evidence the Council ignored the issues Mr X says were overlooked or failed to follow its assessment process.
11. 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

12. 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