Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it made its decision to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to award her daughter, Miss Y, a blue badge. She said Miss Y struggled to leave the house and experienced anxiety when making journeys. She is concerned the Council did not properly consider all the evidence provided. Miss X wants the Council to award Miss Y a blue badge and apologise.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Blue badges help people with disabilities or health conditions park closer to their destination. The Department for Transport (DfT) sets out how councils should consider applications for a blue badge.
6. There are two types of eligibility for a blue badge; people who automatically qualify and those who qualify after further assessment. Applicants may qualify after further assessment if they have any enduring and substantial disability that means they are unable to walk, or experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking.
7. Applicants who can walk more than 80 metres and do not display very considerable difficulty walking for any other reason, including very considerable psychological distress, or serious risk to themselves or others, would not be eligible. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.
8. The Council rejected Miss X’s first application for a blue badge for Miss Y. Since then, Miss X has submitted two appeals with further evidence. The Council rejected each appeal stating Miss Y did not meet the criteria.
9. I have reviewed the Council’s assessments and am satisfied the Council considered all information provided by Miss X as part of the appeals. This included information provided by her GP, psychiatrist and self-report. Although the Council recognises Miss X experiences anxiety and distress on journeys, it does not assess this level of distress prevents her from accessing goods and services.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. That means we will not take another look at a decision and come to our own conclusions. Instead, we look at the process the Council followed when it made its decision. If we consider it followed these processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
11. The Council considered Miss Y’s application in line with the relevant guidance and considered the evidence provided. It has set out its reasons why it does not consider her eligible for a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered Miss Y’s blue badge application to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss 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