Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council wrongly refused her Blue Badge application. She says she has significant physical and mental health conditions, is unable to walk, uses a wheelchair, and provided medical evidence including reports, X‑rays and prescriptions. She believes the decision is unfair and incorrect.

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 Council considered Miss X’s application and referred her for an independent mobility assessment. The assessor recorded a score of 4 and noted she could not complete a walking assessment because she is wheelchair‑bound but concluded this did not meet the eligibility criteria.
8. The Council refused the application on the basis the evidence provided did not show she met the criteria for a Blue Badge. It explained this decision and gave Ms X the opportunity to appeal.
9. Ms X appealed the decision. The Council asked her to provide further relevant information, including clarification about her mobility, medical treatment and prognosis, and residency status.
10. The available evidence shows Ms X did not respond fully to these requests. The Council therefore decided it could not progress the appeal and closed the case in line with its process.
11. 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 look at whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. The Council assessed Ms X’s application based on the information and evidence she provided. It decided she had not provided enough evidence to show she currently qualifies for a blue badge. It explained its decision in its appeal outcome letter. The Council has advised Ms X she may make a new application after six months from the date of the decision.
12. In the absence of evidence, the Council ignored relevant information, failed to follow the correct process, or made its decision in an unreasonable way, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms 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