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 Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge. She says the assessors had little knowledge of her medical condition and the high level of her Personal Independence Payment (PIP) mean the Council should award a permanent 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 Ms X’s representative and the Council. This includes the medical evidence, Council assessment, appeal and the decision letters. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
People may qualify for a badge if they are unable to walk, experience very considerable difficulty when walking (which can include very considerable psychological distress) or are at serious risk of harm when walking. People with a non-physical disability (sometimes called a hidden disability) might qualify.
People automatically qualify for a badge if they get specific points/descriptors with PIP. A Council can issue a badge for no longer than three years.
Ms X re-applied for a Blue Badge and submitted evidence relating to her hidden disability. The Council completed an assessment. The assessment notes show the Council considered Ms X’s application, medical evidence, appeal and the Blue Badge rules. The Council cross-referenced the evidence with the qualifying criteria and agreed Ms X experiences a degree of difficulty when travelling. But, it decided the evidence does not show her difficulties are to the extent that she qualifies for a badge under the hidden disability rules. In particular, the Council noted the evidence does not show Ms X experiences considerable psychological distress when walking or that she poses a risk to herself or others. The Council saw that Ms X’s PIP award does not passport her to a badge.
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 Ms X is eligible for a badge.
Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision and has explained how having a badge has helped. 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.
Ms X receives PIP but the descriptors awarded are not the ones which mean she is passported to a badge. In addition, the regulations do not allow councils to issue a badge for longer than three years.
Ms X says the assessors did not have the knowledge or expertise to assess her condition. The assessments were completed by qualified Occupational Therapists and I have not seen anything to suggest they did not have sufficient knowledge to assess the application; some of the comments made by the assessors show awareness of the impact of Ms X’s condition.
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