Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Mr X’s child a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused his child’s blue badge application. He states this will disadvantage his child, who has mobility difficulties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The main government eligibility criteria for a blue badge relevant in this case are:
• "a person who has been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring and substantial disability which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk, experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress"
• "in addition, they may be at risk of serious harm when walking - or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person"
6. (Department for Transport, Blue Badge scheme local authority guidance (England))
7. Mr X’s child has physical disabilities and previously had a blue badge. When the blue badge expired, Mr X applied again. There is no automatic assumption someone will get another blue badge just because they had one before. There must be a new application, which the Council must consider afresh; it is not just a renewal.
8. The Council refused the application. Mr X appealed. The Council’s appeal decision confirmed the child’s walking difficulties did not meet the threshold for a blue badge. The letters explaining the decisions noted the threshold for blue badge eligibility and the child’s medical conditions, referred to medical information provided about the child’s difficulty walking and noted the child had been assessed walking 80 metres at normal pace on their toes with a mild limp and had walked on stairs using a rail. The Council decided that, while the child’s disability caused some difficulty walking, it was not significant enough for a blue badge.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide who should have a blue badge. As paragraph 2 explained, our role is to consider how the Council reached its decision. The evidence suggests the Council based its original decision and its appeal decision on all the information it had and on the blue badge eligibility rules. It gave reasons related to those points. So the Council properly reached its view. Therefore, as paragraph 2 explained, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision, although Mr X is entitled to disagree with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly, so investigation would be unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman