Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her application, appeal and complaint to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council’s Blue Badge assessment and appeal did not follow Department for Transport (DfT) guidance. She says the Council relied too heavily on a telephone assessment, did not properly consider specialist medical evidence, and placed undue weight on estimated walking distances. She says the assessment did not accurately reflect the impact of her mobility difficulties.

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 applied under the walking ability criteria. The Council considered the information she provided about her mobility difficulties, including pain, walking limitations, use of a walking stick and the support she said she required when walking.
8. The Council referred the application for an independent mobility assessment. The assessor considered the application, supporting medical evidence and the information Mrs X provided during the assessment.
9. The assessor considered Mrs X’s reported pain, walking ability, use of mobility aids, transport use and daily living activities. The assessment concluded that, although Mrs X experienced difficulties with mobility, the available evidence did not demonstrate that she met the eligibility criteria for a Blue Badge.
10. Mrs X appealed the decision and provided further information. The Council reviewed the assessment report, the recording of the telephone assessment and the additional evidence submitted. The Council also asked the independent assessor to review the appeal information and reconsider the assessment outcome.
11. The Council offered Mrs X the opportunity to attend a face-to-face mobility assessment so that her mobility could be observed directly. Mrs X chose not to attend and asked that any further assessment be conducted remotely. The Council therefore made its decision on the basis of the information available to it.
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 the application, supporting medical evidence, assessment findings, appeal submissions and additional evidence. It also reviewed the assessment following Mrs X’s concerns and offered a face-to-face assessment. We have not seen sufficient evidence that the Council ignored relevant information or failed to follow its assessment and appeal process.
13. We will not investigate Mrs 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 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