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 review to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council wrongly refused her Blue Badge application. She says she has a medical condition which means she needs quick access to toilet facilities and that the Council did not properly consider the impact this has on her daily life. She wants the Council to award her 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. Miss X applied under the hidden disability criteria. The Council considered the information she provided about her condition and the effect these had on her ability to access the community. It also considered the medical evidence submitted with her application.
8. The Council completed a desktop assessment and decided there was insufficient evidence to show Miss X met the Blue Badge eligibility criteria. It explained why it did not consider the evidence demonstrated very considerable psychological distress when walking, a risk of serious harm when walking, or very considerable difficulty walking.
9. Miss X asked the Council to review the decision and provided additional information. The Council completed a telephone assessment, reviewed medical records and the information Miss X provided about her difficulties.
10. The review assessor considered Miss X’s reports of toilet urgency, pain, anxiety, treatment, specialist involvement and the impact of her condition on everyday activities. The assessor concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate that Miss X met the Blue Badge eligibility criteria and recommended that the original decision should remain unchanged.
11. Miss X says she needs quick access to toilet facilities when away from home. The assessment records show the Council considered this issue directly. It explained why it did not consider the need for urgent access to toilet facilities, on its own, demonstrated eligibility for a Blue Badge. The Council also considered the coping strategies and support available to Miss X when accessing the community.
12. 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, supporting evidence and review submissions before reaching its decision. We have not seen sufficient evidence that the Council ignored relevant information or failed to follow its assessment and review process.
13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Final decision

14. 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