Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s Blue Badge application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council refused her Blue Badge application and appeal. She says the Council did not follow Department for Transport (DfT) guidance because it failed to properly consider whether she can walk safely, repeatedly and without significant pain. She says the assessment relied too heavily on a single walking assessment and did not reflect the impact of her condition. Ms X believes the decision was unfair and 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. Ms X says the Council did not properly consider the impact of her pain and mobility difficulties when assessing her application. The evidence shows the Council considered her application and reviewed the medical evidence she submitted in support of her application. The Council recorded her diagnoses, ongoing pain management treatment and reported mobility difficulties.
8. The Council arranged a mobility assessment. The assessment considered the supporting medical evidence she provided. Following the assessment, the Council decided the evidence did not demonstrate that Ms X met the eligibility criteria for a Blue Badge.
9. Ms X appealed the decision and submitted further evidence. The Council considered the appeal but decided the additional evidence did not alter its view that Ms X did not meet the eligibility criteria. It explained its reasons in its appeal decision.
10. 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 available shows the Council considered Ms X’s medical evidence, carried out a mobility assessment, considered her appeal, and explained why it decided she did not meet the eligibility criteria. We have not seen evidence the Council relied solely on walking distance or ignored the issues Ms X says were overlooked. Any disagreement is therefore with the professional judgement reached rather than the way the decision was made.
11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms 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