The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge. He says the Council failed to consider the hidden disability rules for a 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 and the Council. This includes Mr X’s application and the supporting evidence. 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. This consideration includes whether someone experiences very considerable psychological distress when walking. People with a non-physical disability (sometimes called a hidden disability) might qualify.
People qualify for a badge if they get specific points with a benefit called Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
Mr X applied for a badge under the hidden disability rules. He explained he is at risk when walking due to his disability and experiences anxiety. Mr X did not provide medical evidence relating to his anxiety and said he does not receive any treatment. Mr X provided proof of his PIP award; the decision letter shows the descriptor that has been awarded for mobility is not one that passports to a badge.
The Council considered Mr X’s application, supporting evidence and asked additional questions which relate to the hidden disability rules. The Council cross-referenced the evidence with the qualifying criteria and agreed Mr X experiences a degree of difficulty when travelling. 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. It decided there is no evidence he cannot take action to minimise any risks and keep himself safe; it also said there is no evidence his anxiety prevents him from reaching his destination or that it reaches the threshold of very considerable psychological distress.
I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. We do not act as 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. However, we can only intervene if there is fault in the way the Council made the decision. 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.
The Council said a badge could be helpful for Mr X’s mental health but refused a badge. Mr X says this is contradictory and shows he should receive a badge. I can see why Mr X may think this means he is entitled to a badge, and I agree it could be viewed as contradictory; but the thrust of the decision is that, while Mr X has some difficulties, they are not enough to qualify for a badge. This one sentence, in the context of the overall assessment process for a badge, does not amount to fault requiring an investigation or mean Mr X is eligible for a badge.
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