Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the result of her blue badge application and appeal. She says the assessor completing the mobility assessment failed to record that Mrs X’s husband and carer supported her during the assessment and the decision to refuse her application is wrong.

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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge Scheme helps people with severe physical mobility problems, or other conditions affecting their mobility, to access goods and services. It does this by allowing them, or their carer, to park near their destination. The scheme gives parking concessions to Blue Badge holders. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing applicants’ eligibility for the badge.
6. The DfT guidance says councils must make sure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation.
7. There are two types of eligibility criteria:
• where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge.
• where a person is eligible following further assessment, they have to fulfil one of two criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:
1. drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and be unable to operate, or have considerable difficulty operating, all or some types of parking meter, OR
2. have a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
8. Mrs X applied to the Council for a blue badge. She was not automatically eligible for a blue badge, so the Council invited her for a face-to-face assessment. That included a mobility assessment. The assessor noted:
• Mrs X used a privately bought walking frame
• She was assessed walking more than 80m; this included walking over changing surfaces. The walking assessment showed moderate difficulties with the applicant’s mobility. The applicant was observed to have moderate behaviours of discomfort and/or breathlessness when walking.
9. The assessor scored the assessment and concluded Mrs X did not meet the criteria for a Blue Badge and refused her application.
10. Mrs X appealed. She says the assessor failed to record her husband and carer supported her during the assessment.
11. The Council contacted the assessor who confirmed her husband was present for the interview but was not present for the walking part of the assessment.
12. Although Mrs X is unhappy with the outcome of the appeal, we will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s assessment and appeal documentation demonstrates it considered all the information she provided about her medical conditions, including her self-reported difficulties with pain. And although she does not feel the mobility assessment presented a true reflection of her walking ability, the assessor’s comments do highlight difficulties with her walking. Therefore, I am satisfied these were properly considered. The Council set out its reasons why Mrs X did not meet the criteria for a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her application to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman