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 and review to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused his Blue Badge application under the hidden disability criteria. He says his mental health condition causes significant psychological distress when travelling and means he can become confused, disorientated and overwhelmed in unfamiliar or busy places. He says the Council did not properly consider the impact of his condition on his ability to undertake journeys safely and independently. Mr X says the refusal has made it more difficult to attend appointments, access services and complete everyday activities safely.

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 hidden disability criteria. The Council considered the information provided in his application, including his account of anxiety, confusion, travelling independently and concerns about his safety when undertaking journeys. The Council also considered supporting medical evidence and GP records.
8. The application was assessed by an independent assessor using an assessment framework linked to the DfT hidden disability criteria. The assessor accepted Mr X experienced difficulties associated with his condition and considered the information he provided about his fears, anxiety and need for support when travelling.
9. The assessor concluded the available evidence demonstrated mild to moderate difficulties in some areas but did not demonstrate very considerable psychological distress during journeys, or a risk of serious harm to himself or others when travelling. The assessor therefore decided the evidence did not demonstrate that the Blue Badge eligibility criteria were met.
10. The assessment also considered the supporting medical records provided with the application, including specialist mental health evidence, medication records and more recent GP consultations. The assessor explained why the information available did not demonstrate the level of difficulty or risk required under the hidden disability criteria.
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, supporting medical evidence and review information before reaching its decision. We have not seen sufficient evidence that the Council ignored relevant information or failed to follow an assessment process 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