Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs 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. Mrs X complains the Council failed to follow Department for Transport (DfT) guidance when assessing her Blue Badge application under the hidden disability criteria. She says the Council misinterpreted the evidence she provided, failed to properly consider the difficulties she experiences. It expected evidence that is not required by the guidance and did not make reasonable enquiries before refusing her application. She also says the appeal process was unfair and wants the Council to reconsider its decision

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. Mrs X says the Council misinterpreted the evidence she provided and failed to properly consider the difficulties she experiences as a result of her hidden disabilities. The evidence shows the Council considered her application and supporting evidence before refusing the application. It explained why it considered the information provided insufficient to demonstrate eligibility under the hidden disability criteria.
8. Mrs X appealed the decision and provided further information and examples of the difficulties she experiences when undertaking journeys. The Council considered the appeal but decided the additional information did not demonstrate that she met the eligibility criteria. It explained its reasons in the appeal outcome.
9. Following a complaint from Mrs X, the Council carried out a further review of the application, appeal and supporting evidence. The Council considered Mrs X’s concerns about the way her evidence had been interpreted, and its consideration of her Workplace Needs Assessment. It explained why it considered the evidence did not demonstrate the level of functional impairment required under the hidden disability criteria.
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 Mrs X’s application, supporting evidence and appeal submissions. It gave her an opportunity to provide additional information, and reviewed the matter again following her complaint. We have not seen evidence the Council ignored relevant information or failed to follow its assessment process.
11. We will not investigate Mrs 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 Mrs 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