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 failed to follow Department for Transport (DfT) guidance when it assessed his Blue Badge application and appeal. He says the assessment did not properly reflect how long it took him to walk 80 metres, his need to rest, or the impact of his health conditions. He also says the Council wrongly stated that he provided no further medical evidence at appeal and unfairly described his previous Blue Badge award as an error.

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 failed to properly consider his medical conditions, pain, need for rest, and the time it took him to walk 80 metres during the mobility assessment. The evidence shows the Council referred his application to an independent mobility assessor. The assessor recorded Mr X’s diagnoses, reviewed recent medical evidence, and carried out an observed walking assessment. The assessor noted his pace, pain, discomfort, and need to stop during the walk. The assessor concluded that, although Mr X had moderate difficulties, his mobility did not meet the DfT threshold for a Blue Badge.
8. Mr X appealed the decision. He said his mobility difficulties were greater than shown in the assessment and that he had provided further evidence. The Council reviewed the appeal and considered his concerns about the assessment process. It confirmed that it had taken account of the reported fall and the impact of walking in real life situations. The Council decided there was no new information that changed the original eligibility decision.
9. Mr X also disagrees with the Council’s view that it likely granted his previous Blue Badge in error. However, DfT guidance is clear that councils must assess each application on its own merits. A previous award does not guarantee eligibility for a later application.
10. We are not an appeal body. We do not decide whether Mr X should have received a Blue Badge. Our role is limited to considering whether the Council acted with fault when it made its decision. The evidence shows the Council followed the established Blue Badge assessment and appeal process, relied on professional judgement, and explained its decision to Mr X.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify 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