Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr 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. Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused his Blue Badge application. He says the Council ignored evidence from his GP and did not properly consider the impact of his conditions on his mobility and ability to travel safely. He says the Council placed too much weight on specialist evidence and his PIP score and did not follow the correct appeals process. Mr X wants the Council to reconsider its decision and award him 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 ignored evidence from his GP and placed too much weight on specialist evidence. The evidence shows the Council considered the information he provided, including GP evidence, hospital records and mental health assessments. The Council explained why it considered the evidence did not show Mr X met either the physical mobility criteria or the hidden disability criteria for a Blue Badge.
8. Mr X appealed the decision and provided further information. The Council reviewed the appeal and explained why it considered the additional evidence insufficient to demonstrate eligibility. It also explained why it considered further evidence about the functional impact of Mr X’s conditions was needed.
9. Mr X says the Council relied heavily on his PIP score. However, the evidence shows the Council considered the medical evidence and information he submitted, as well as his PIP award. The Council explained that the PIP award was only one factor considered when reviewing the application and appeal.
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 look at whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. The Council considered the information and evidence Mr X provided and explained why it decided he did not meet the Blue Badge eligibility criteria.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we have not seen sufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s application or appeal.

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