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 considered his application and appeal to justify an investigation

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused his Blue Badge application. He says the Council did not properly consider the impact of his diagnoses on his ability to undertake journeys safely and independently. He says the Council did not properly consider the evidence he provided and discriminated against him because his disabilities are not visible. He wants the Council to 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 applied under the hidden disability criteria. The Council considered his diagnoses and invited him to provide supporting evidence from a healthcare or social care professional about the impact of his conditions during journeys.
8. Following the refusal of the application, Mr X appealed. An independent assessor reviewed the evidence, including specialist evidence, Personal Independence Payment (PIP) information and Mr X’s appeal submissions. The assessor considered the areas set out in the DfT hidden disability guidance.
9. The assessor accepted Mr X experiences difficulties associated with his conditions and considered the specialist evidence relating to his diagnoses. However, the assessor concluded the evidence demonstrated mild to moderate difficulties with travel rather than the level of difficulty required to qualify for a Blue Badge. The Council relied on that assessment when deciding not to award a Blue Badge.
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 evidence shows the Council considered Mr X’s diagnoses, specialist evidence, PIP information, application and appeal submissions. It obtained an independent assessment and explained why it did not consider the evidence demonstrated that Mr X met the hidden disability criteria. We have not seen sufficient evidence that the Council ignored relevant information or failed to follow its assessment and appeal process.
11. We will not investigate Mr 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 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