Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Mr X a blue badge. The Council reached its decision properly. Mr X’s concerns about the time taken are not significant enough in themselves to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his application for a blue badge. He argues this resulted in wrongful refusal of a blue badge, causing inconvenience, damaging his trust and causing distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
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 the complainant and copy documents from the Council. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The main government eligibility criteria for a blue badge relevant in this case are:
• “a person who has been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring and substantial disability which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk, experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress”
• “in addition, they may be at risk of serious harm when walking - or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person”

(Department for Transport, Blue Badge scheme local authority guidance (England))

6. Mr X’s application said he had autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) and said why he believed a blue badge would help. The Council refused the application. Its decision letter set out the government’s eligibility criteria and said Mr X did not meet those criteria. The letter also said Mr X had supplied evidence of autism but not of ADHD or GAD. It also said there was no evidence Mr X was affected in certain ways relevant to travel and to the blue badge eligibility criteria.
7. Mr X appealed, supplied evidence of his ADHD and GAD diagnoses, described his speech and language difficulties and said he had now answered ‘all of the reasons why it [the blue badge application] was declined…’ The Council’s appeal decision-making record shows the Council considered the information in the context of the government’s criteria for blue badge eligibility and decided Mr X had some difficulties making a journey but did not meet the blue badge criteria.
8. Mr X says the appeal decision-making introduced new reasons whereas he argues the Council first refused his application just because of a lack of evidence of certain conditions, which he then supplied, so he should have got a blue badge. I am not persuaded of this. The Council’s first refusal letter mentioned the lack of evidence Mr X had certain conditions, but that was not the only or main refusal reason. The first decision letter was clear the Council had refused the application because it did not think Mr X met the government’s criteria. It did not state or imply the only problem was the lack of evidence of certain conditions, or that providing evidence of those conditions would overcome the refusal. The Council’s first decision letter made clear enough the main issue was whether, even with such diagnoses, the particular ways the conditions affected Mr X meant he met the blue badge eligibility threshold. It was clear the main consideration would always be whether there was evidence Mr X met the specific criteria for a blue badge. So I do not find the Council misled Mr X into thinking he only had to provide evidence of some conditions to get a blue badge.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide who should have a blue badge. As paragraph 3 explained, our role is to consider how the Council reached its decision. The evidence suggests the Council based its appeal decision on all the information it had and on the blue badge eligibility criteria. It gave reasons related to those points. So the Council’s decision was properly reached. Therefore, as paragraph 3 explained, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision, although Mr X is entitled to disagree with the Council.
10. Mr X is also unhappy with how long the Council’s decisions took. The Council took a month to reject the first application. I do not consider that excessive. The Council’s website says it can take up to eight weeks in these circumstances. Mr X says the Council took over a month to deal with his appeal, despite him chasing progress. I appreciate waiting was frustrating. However, I do not consider the time taken amounted to fault or caused significant enough injustice for us to investigate. It would be disproportionate for us to investigate the timescales when we are not looking into the substantive decision on Mr X’s blue badge eligibility.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly, so investigation would be unlikely to find fault affecting the result. Mr X’s concerns about the time taken are not significant enough in themselves to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman