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 considered her application and appeal to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council wrongly refused her Blue Badge application under the non-visible disability criteria. She says she provided the evidence requested by the Council, including evidence from a specialist and details of a later diagnosis, but the Council continued to refuse her application and gave inconsistent reasons for doing so. She says the Council failed to properly consider the impact of her conditions on her ability to undertake journeys and the risks she experiences when travelling.

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 applied under the non-visible disability criteria. The Council considered the information provided in her application. The Council also reviewed the supporting evidence submitted with the application.
8. The Council considered whether Miss X qualified automatically for a Blue Badge through her Personal Independence Payment (PIP) award. It decided she did not qualify through the automatic eligibility route and therefore assessed her application under the non-visible disability criteria.
9. The Council reviewed the medical evidence provided by Miss X, including a clinical letter relating to her mental health conditions and a subsequent ADHD assessment. The Council accepted that Miss X has diagnosed conditions and recognised that they may have a significant impact on her day-to-day life.
10. Miss X appealed the decision and provided further information. She said she had supplied the specialist evidence the Council requested and that the evidence demonstrated the impact of her conditions and the risks she experienced when travelling. The Council reviewed the additional material and considered the appeal.
11. The Council concluded that, while the evidence confirmed Miss X’s diagnoses and treatment, it did not demonstrate overwhelming psychological distress preventing journeys, a consistent inability to undertake journeys safely, or a significant and ongoing risk of serious harm to herself or others when walking. It therefore upheld the original decision.
12. Miss X says the Council repeatedly changed the reasons for refusal. However, the evidence shows the Council’s decisions consistently focused on whether the evidence demonstrated the level of impact required by the non-visible disability criteria. The Council explained that the existence of a diagnosis, or evidence from a specialist, did not by itself demonstrate eligibility and that the key consideration was the effect of the condition on undertaking journeys.
13. 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 Miss X’s application, the supporting information she provided, the clinical evidence submitted and the further evidence received on appeal. We have not seen sufficient evidence that the Council ignored relevant information, applied the wrong eligibility criteria or failed to follow its assessment and appeal process.
14. 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

15. 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