Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge under the hidden disability rules. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to award her son a Blue Badge. Mrs X wants the Council to issue a badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mrs X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she sent. I also considered information from the Council. I gave Mrs X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

Blue badge government guidance

5. People qualify for a badge if they are unable to walk, experience considerable difficulty when walking, or are at serious risk of harm when walking. These problems can include considerable psychological distress while walking. The guidance says councils should ask for evidence and the applicant must show that their difficulties mean they cannot access goods and services. The guidance says councils must be satisfied that any problems cannot be managed through reasonable coping strategies. For example, if a person is always accompanied then a badge would not be awarded. Councils need to decide if a Blue Badge would be an appropriate coping strategy.

What happened

6. Mrs X applied for a Blue Bade for her son (Y) who is four years old. Mrs X explained Y often tries to run away and is unaware of the danger posed by cars. Mrs X explained Y needed to be constantly supervised and so it was difficult to travel with her other child. Y would only travel in a car he used regularly and needed to sit in the same seat. He could not therefore travel by taxi. Mrs X supplied supporting information from Y’s school and the NHS. Mrs X explained a Blue Badge would make it much easier to park close to Y’s nursery and places such as supermarkets.
7. The Council considered Mrs X’s application but decided there was “insufficient evidence to support issuing a badge.” The Council said “The legislation is specifically in place to help people where their psychological distress and/or risk of harm is unmanageable and therefore cannot be mitigated.” The Council said the presence of a parent negated the risks outlined in the application, and there was not enough evidence Y could not access the community.
8. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision. It invited her to a telephone assessment which noted Y often having ‘meltdowns’ and trying to break free. Mrs X said Y’s behaviour was not as expected for a child of his age. The Council invited Mrs X and Y to a face-to face assessment.
9. The assessment lasted 45 minutes. The assessor had access to supporting information from Mrs X including letters from the NHS and Y’s nursery. The assessor observed Y. The assessor’s view was that Y did not experience “overwhelming psychological distress while accessing the community. Risks to self and others were negated through ability to access the community in his stroller with support and supervision form his mum…It is acknowledged that the impulsivity and hypervigilance for mum is challenging; however robust coping strategies appear to be in place”. The assessor decided Y did not meet the criteria for a Blue Badge. They felt a badge would also reduce “the opportunity to walk, exercise and implement strategies as part of regular functional journeys.”
10. The Council upheld the decision following a complaint from Mrs X, who then complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

11. We do not act as an appeal body, and it is not our role to decide if Y qualifies for a Blue Badge. We can only consider how the Council reached its decision. We cannot question the professional judgment of council officers without evidence of fault in the decision-making process. While I know Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, that does not mean the decision is wrong.
12. Based on the information I have seen, the Council considered the original application form, supporting information, and the factors which might mean someone qualifies under the hidden disability rules. When Mrs X was unhappy with the original decision, the Council offered a review via a telephone appointment, and then a face-to-face assessment. Once again, the assessor considered the information they were presented with, and results of the assessment. They decided Y did not meet the criteria for a badge.
13. In considering Mrs X’s application and appeals the Council considered all the issues we would expect it to consider. It decided Y did not meet the criteria for a Blue Badge and explained its decision to Mrs X. The way the Council reached its decision was consistent with government guidance. Because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision, we have no powers to question the decision itself. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman