Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a blue badge for her son, Y. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a blue badge for her four year old son, Y, under the hidden disability criteria. She says the Council failed to apply the criteria for hidden disabilities, particularly in relation to Autism Spectrum Disorder, hypermobility and sensory processing disorder. Instead, it focussed on the coping strategies currently in place. Miss X also complains the Council did not properly consider the medical evidence she provided and did not show it considered the need for reasonable adjustments.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start 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))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X applied to the Council for a blue badge, under the non-visible (hidden) disability criteria for her 4 year old son.
8. 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.
9. There are two types of eligibility criteria:

• where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;
• where a person is eligible subject to further assessment, they have to fulfil one or more of three criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:
• drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and be unable to operate, or have considerable difficulty operating, all or some types of parking meter; or
• have been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring or substantial disability, which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk or experience very considerable difficulty walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress; or
• be at risk of serious harm when walking, or pose a serious risk of harm to any other person.

10. The Council considered Y’s application under both the physical disability and non-visible (hidden) disability criteria. It considered the information and evidence Miss X provided in support of the application and an assessment was completed by an independent expert assessor. It decided Y does not currently meet the DfT eligibility criteria for issuing of a blue badge and so, the application was refused.
11. Miss X appealed the Council’s decision. No new evidence was provided at appeal stage and the Council maintained its decision to refuse the application. It clearly explained its reasons in its final response to Miss X.
12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It assessed and decided the application in line with the relevant DfT guidance and the information and evidence Miss X provided. The DfT guidance says councils should consider whether an applicant’s difficulties can be managed via reasonable coping strategies, and so there is no sign of fault in the Council considering this in its decision making.
13. 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 the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If, as here, we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even though Miss X disagrees with it.
14. I have not considered Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to consider the need for reasonable adjustments in its consideration of her application. This is because, from the information I have considered, Miss X has not raised this point to the Council and so, it has not yet had the opportunity to consider this part of Miss X’s complaint. The law says before investigating a complaint we must normally be satisfied the complainant has raised the matter to the Council and that it has been given the opportunity to consider and respond on it.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council in how it considered and decided Y’s blue badge application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman