Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s Blue Badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed his application and reviewed its decision 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 medical evidence he provided about his non-visible and fluctuating condition. He says the Council relied on incorrect or irrelevant information, failed to provide clear reasons for its decision, and did not properly investigate the concerns he raised during the appeal and complaint process. Mr X also questions whether the Council properly considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010 when assessing the impact of his hidden and fluctuating disability.

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)
4. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
5. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
6. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. 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.
10. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge and provided information about his medical conditions, treatment and the impact these had on his mobility. The Council initially completed a desktop assessment and decided the information provided did not demonstrate that he met the eligibility criteria.
11. Mr X appealed the decision and said the Council had focused too heavily on walking distance and had not properly considered the wider impact of his condition, including pain, fatigue, breathlessness and safety concerns. He also provided further medical evidence from healthcare professionals involved in his care.
12. As part of the appeal process, the Council arranged an in-person mobility assessment with a qualified Occupational Therapist. The Occupational Therapist considered Mr X’s account of his condition, treatment, pain, fatigue, walking ability and mobility. The Occupational Therapist concluded that, although Mr X experienced some mobility difficulties, the available evidence did not demonstrate the level of difficulty required to qualify for a Blue Badge.
13. Mr X challenged the outcome and said the assessment did not properly reflect the impact of his condition or the way his symptoms fluctuated. He also said the Occupational Therapist did not properly understand his condition. In response, the Council sought further information from healthcare professionals involved in his care and reviewed the additional information alongside the Occupational Therapist’s assessment and supporting evidence already provided.
14. Although Mr X’s application was initially considered under the walking ability criteria, he later said his condition should also have been considered as a non-visible and fluctuating disability. The DfT guidance says councils should not expect applicants to identify the precise route by which they may qualify and should consider all the available evidence against the relevant criteria. The Council subsequently considered both the physical and non-visible effects Mr X said his condition caused when reviewing the application and appeal.
15. The Council accepted Mr X had a significant medical condition and considered the information he provided about pain, fatigue, medication, mobility and day-to-day difficulties. However, it concluded the available evidence did not demonstrate that Mr X was unable to walk, experienced very considerable difficulty whilst walking, or that the effort of walking presented the level of risk required by the Blue Badge eligibility criteria.
16. Mr X says the Occupational Therapist did not have specialist knowledge of his condition. However, the DfT guidance recognises Occupational Therapists as appropriate expert assessors for mobility assessments and makes clear that eligibility is not determined by diagnosis alone but by the impact of a condition on mobility. The Council also sought additional information from healthcare professionals before reaching its final decision.
17. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider his condition as a hidden and fluctuating disability. We cannot decide whether the Council breached the Equality Act 2010. However, we can consider whether it had regard to the impact of Mr X’s condition when determining the application. The evidence shows the Council considered the medical evidence provided, Mr X’s description of his symptoms, the Occupational Therapist’s assessment and further information from healthcare professionals. We have not seen sufficient evidence that the Council failed to take account of the impact of his condition when assessing his eligibility for a Blue Badge.
18. 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 the application, supporting medical evidence, the Occupational Therapist’s assessment and additional information obtained during the appeal process before reaching its final decision. We have not seen sufficient evidence that the Council ignored relevant information or failed to follow an assessment process that was broadly consistent with the DfT guidance.
19. Mr X also raised concerns about the way his appeal and complaint were handled. However, there is not enough additional injustice arising from complaint handling, on its own, to justify a separate investigation.
20. 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

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman