Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse to renew the complainant’s Blue Badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse to renew her application for a Blue Badge. She says the decision is causing her distress and her health has become worse. Miss X wants the Council to issue her a new Blue Badge.

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))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X applied for a Blue Badge under the hidden disabilities criteria.
7. The Council considered her application and supporting evidence. It decided she needed further assessment and made an appointment for her to attend an assessment.
8. Ms X drove herself to an appointment with the Assessor appointed by the Council.
9. The Assessor noted Miss X had no difficulty walking. It also noted Miss X reports she suffers generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder and mild agoraphobia. They also noted the medication prescribed for her and the private therapy treatments she has. However, they also noted:
• her diagnosis letter is more than six years old
• she is not known to the Community Mental Health Team
• she has not been sectioned; and
• has not been admitted to hospital for her mental health conditions.
10. The Assessor also noted Miss X :
• attended the assessment centre with a friend
• had no difficulty walking 80 metres unaided and without pain
• engaged with the Assessor and answered all the questions; and
• showed no considerable psychological distress while walking
11. The Council wrote to Miss X declining her application to renew her Blue Badge because it considers:
• she does not have very considerable difficulty walking; and
• did not demonstrate very considerable psychological distress whilst walking; and
• is not at serious risk of harm to herself or others when walking.
12. I understand Miss X disagrees with the Council and believes its decision is wrong. However, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. That means we will not take another look at a decision and come to our own conclusions. Instead, we look at the process the Council followed when it made its decision. If we consider it followed these processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
13. The Council considered the information and evidence provided by Miss X. It completed an independent assessment. It explained why she is not eligible having referred to the criteria set out in the Department of Transport Guidance. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s Blue Badge application to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with her application to renew her Blue Badge to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman