Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his application, appeal and review 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 assess his mobility difficulties before making its decision. He says the Council referred his case to an Occupational Therapist during the appeal process, but the Occupational Therapist concluded he did not meet the criteria without carrying out an in-person assessment. Mr X says the Council failed to consider relevant aspects of his walking ability and this has affected his independence, mobility, confidence and mental wellbeing.

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. Mr X applied under the walking ability criteria. The Council considered the information he provided about his mobility difficulties. The Council initially refused the application because it did not consider the evidence demonstrated that Mr X met the Blue Badge eligibility criteria. It explained the matters it had considered when reaching that decision.
8. Mr X appealed and provided further information. During the appeal process, the Council sought additional information from a consultant involved in Mr X’s care and later from his GP. The consultant provided updated medical records and information about Mr X’s condition and treatment. The GP advised that the specific information requested was not recorded in Mr X’s medical records.
9. Following further discussions with Mr X, the Council agreed to refer the application and supporting evidence to an Occupational Therapist for a further review. The Council explained that an in-person assessment would only be arranged if the evidence indicated this was necessary. The Occupational Therapist reviewed the application, supporting evidence and medical information before concluding that, although there was evidence of some mobility difficulties, the available information did not demonstrate that the threshold for eligibility had been met.
10. Mr X says the Occupational Therapist should have carried out a face-to-face assessment and assessed additional aspects of his walking ability. However, the DfT guidance does not require every applicant to receive an in-person mobility assessment. The guidance allows local authorities to determine their assessment procedures and recognises the use of desk-based assessments, supporting evidence and expert assessor reviews when determining eligibility.
11. 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 Mr X’s application, sought additional information from healthcare professionals, reviewed further evidence provided during the appeal process and obtained a further review from an Occupational Therapist 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.
12. 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

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr 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