Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Blue Badge application. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant investigation.

The complaint

2. Mrs X complains the Council did not properly assess her eligibility for a Blue Badge because it ignored, and did not properly weigh up, her medical evidence. Mrs X says she was treated unethically during a mobility assessment completed by the Council, which minimised her difficulties with walking and left her bedbound for 24 hours. Mrs X is unhappy about how long the Council took to decide her appeal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 or we decide any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. 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. It does this by allowing them, or their carer, to park near their destination. The DfT Blue Badge scheme guidance (the guidance) says councils must make sure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in law.
8. Mrs X was not automatically eligible for a Blue Badge so the Council considered her application under the “subject to further assessment” criteria in the guidance. The guidance says that where someone’s eligibility is not obvious Councils should seek an independent assessment. So the Council invited Mrs X to an in-person mobility assessment.
9. The evidence shows the assessor took into account all medical information provided by Mrs X. This included her self-report and evidence from her osteopath as well as other medical professionals. The assessor considered the impact of Mrs X’s medical needs, current and historical, on her ability to walk. The evidence does not show Mrs X told the Council she had been bedbound for 24 hours after the mobility assessment. We would be unlikely to find fault in how the Council considered the medical evidence it had at the time of her application and appeal.
10. During the mobility assessment Mrs X was asked to walk 80 metres. The assessor noted Mrs X completed the walk but stopped once to rest. Mrs X says she was “forced” to carry on but the evidence does not support this. Mrs X could have stopped if she felt unable to continue with the assessment. We would be unlikely to find evidence of fault in how the Council conducted the walking test.
11. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decisions to decide if they were wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the Council made its decisions. That does not include considering what weight a council gave to different pieces of information in reaching its decision. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of procedural fault by the Council to cast doubt on its decision.
12. Any remaining injustice to Mrs X caused by how long the Council took to decide her appeal is not significant enough to warrant investigation as the result did not change and is not open to further appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault that is likely to have affected the result. Any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman