The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful Blue Badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about the way the Council assessed her Blue Badge application. She says the Council ignored her medical evidence and did not contact her GP. She also says the Council did not return some documents.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the medical evidence. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
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. Councils can consider the impact of hidden disabilities and whether walking causes considerable psychological distress. The guidance says councils should consider whether the applicant has any coping mechanisms in place such as being accompanied by another person. When a person has coping mechanisms a council may decide not to award a badge.
Ms X applied for a badge due to having seizures and some other conditions. She said she could be at risk if she has a seizure near traffic. She said she cannot travel on her own and has someone with her. In other evidence she referred to being able walk around her home town but would need someone to take her if going further. The evidence also referred to her taking medication which is effective in controlling her anxiety.
Ms X provided evidence from her consultant and GP. The consultant referred to Ms X as being vulnerable due to the seizures and anxiety. The GP supported the application and said Ms X gets recurrent seizures.
The Council assessed the application but decided not to award a badge. It noted Ms X has had four seizures over her lifetime and, following two seizures last year, her medication was increased. It noted that while the consultant referred to walking causing anxiety other evidence says her anxiety is controlled and that the consultant had not seen Ms X for a year when he wrote the report. The Council noted Ms X had two seizures in 2021 after previously having two seizures separated by 12 years; it also noted her medication had been increased following the seizures last year. The Council considered that Ms X had not referred to anxiety on the application and had referred to often being accompanied, which is an effective strategy to keep her safe.
We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault. We do not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council has made a decision. We have no power to award a badge and cannot decide if someone is entitled to a badge.
Ms X says the Council ignored her medical evidence. But, the documents show the Council considered all the evidence but decided the body of evidence does not show entitlement to a badge. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision but it flows from the Council’s assessment of all the evidence and there is no suggestion of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
Ms X is unhappy the Council did not contact her GP for further evidence but there was no requirement for the Council to do so and the Council considered evidence from other sources. The Council also says Ms X supplied her documents on-line and there are no documents it has failed to return.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman