Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Blue Badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not properly consider the evidence provided when assessing her Blue Badge application. Miss X says the Council also breached her rights under the Human Rights Act and Equality Act.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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)
3. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Human Rights 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.
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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge scheme guidance says a council must make sure it only issues badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in law, and where someone’s eligibility for a Blue Badge is not obvious, councils should seek an independent assessment of the application.
8. Miss X applied for a Blue Badge. As she was not automatically eligible for a Blue Badge, the Council considered her application under the “subject to further assessment” criteria in the DfT guidance. The evidence shows the Council considered all medical evidence provided by Miss X, including both physical and mental health conditions and how these affect her everyday life. The evidence further shows the assessor recognised the effects of Miss X’s conditions, but found they were not severe enough to qualify for a Blue Badge.
9. 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 information Miss X provided and reviewed the decision on appeal before reaching a final decision. We have not seen evidence the Council ignored relevant information or failed to follow its assessment process.
10. Miss X further complains the Council did not consider information about her Personal Independence Payment (PIP) award after the appeal. The evidence shows the Council considered Miss X’s PIP; however, it did not change its decision as it considered the PIP award to only reflect the information it had already considered. The Council advised Miss X that she could reapply after six months or should there be a change in her circumstances. We would be unlikely to find evidence of fault in how the Council considered this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman