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

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council wrongly refused her Blue Badge application. She says it did not properly consider evidence showing that her condition and mobility had deteriorated. She says the Council focused too much on the distance she walked during the assessment and did not properly consider her pain, fatigue, balance difficulties or safety. Miss X wants the Council to reconsider its decision and award her 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. Miss X says the Council did not properly consider her worsening condition and mobility difficulties. The evidence shows the Council considered her application and supporting medical evidence. It also arranged an assessment by an independent healthcare professional.
8. The assessor considered Miss X’s medical conditions, treatment and reported difficulties. The assessor also observed Miss X walking more than 80 metres over changing surfaces. The assessor recorded moderate mobility difficulties, discomfort, mild breathlessness and reduced balance. However, the assessor decided Miss X did not meet the Blue Badge eligibility criteria.
9. Miss X appealed the decision. She said her condition had deteriorated and the assessment did not properly reflect how safely and reliably she could walk. The Council reviewed the original application, the assessment and the points Miss X raised. The Council was entitled to consider all this evidence alongside the observations made during the mobility assessment. It decided there was not enough new medical evidence to change the original decision and explained this in its appeal response.
10. 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 consider whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. The Council considered Miss X’s application, supporting evidence and observed mobility. It also considered her appeal and explained why it maintained its decision. We have not seen enough evidence that the Council ignored relevant information or failed to follow its assessment process.
11. We will not investigate Miss 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 Miss 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