The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 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)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X’s representative and the Council. This includes the application, medical evidence and assessments. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
People may qualify for a badge if they are unable to walk, experience considerable difficulty when walking or are at serious risk of harm when walking. People with a non-physical disability (sometimes called a hidden disability) might qualify if they experience very considerable psychological distress while walking or are at risk of harm to themselves or others. Not everyone with a hidden disability will qualify for a badge.
Mr X applied for a Blue Badge and submitted medical evidence relating to his hidden disability. The Council completed an assessment. The assessment notes show the Council considered Mr X’s application, medical evidence, appeal and the Blue Badge rules. The Council cross-referenced the evidence with the qualifying criteria and agreed Mr X experiences a degree of difficulty when travelling, especially in relation to finding a parking place, parking meters and using phones. But, it decided the evidence does not show his difficulties are to the extent that he qualifies for a badge under the hidden disability rules. The Council explained the rules do not cover parking related issues but the act of walking.
I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. We are not an appeal body and I can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council makes a decision. I have no power to award a badge and it is not my role to re-assess the claim or decide if Mr X is eligible for a badge.
Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision and has explained how having a badge would help. For example, he says the application was part of a recovery plan and a badge would help him go out and alleviate some of his difficulties. However, we can only intervene if there is fault in the way the Council made the decision and I have not seen any evidence of fault. The Council considered all the evidence and the decision it reached is consistent with that evidence and the Blue Badge rules. As there is no suggestion of fault there is no reason to start an investigation.
Mr X says the Council discriminated against him but I have not seen anything to support this allegation. The Council assessed the claim on the basis of his hidden disability; the fact a council refuses an application is not an example of discrimination. I appreciate Mr X and his representative disagree with the decision and say Mr X does qualify for a badge. But, this disagreement does not reflect fault and, as I have said, it is not my role to reassess the application or re-make the decision.
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