Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant’s representative, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge for a child.

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 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 Mr X and the Council. This includes the application, medical evidence and decision letters. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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. People with a non-physical disability (sometimes called a hidden disability) might qualify. Not everyone with a hidden disability qualifies for a badge. The government guidance says councils must take into account any coping strategies that are in place.
6. Mr X applied for a badge, under the hidden disability rules, for a child who is four. He explained the medical condition and said the child is at risk from traffic and from e-bikes and e-scooters. Mr X provided medical evidence and information about electric vehicles.
7. The Council considered the application, medical evidence, appeal and the Blue Badge rules. The Council cross-referenced the evidence with the qualifying criteria and agreed the child experiences a degree of difficulty when travelling. But, it decided the evidence does not show their difficulties are to the extent that they qualify for a badge. The Council noted there is no evidence the child cannot visually check for danger or have an awareness of danger that is appropriate for their age. The Council noted Mr X reported the child is always accompanied and that any four year old child will need supervision to keep them safe when travelling.
8. 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 the child is eligible for a badge.
9. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision and has explained how having a badge would help the child and keep them safe from e-vehicles. However, we can only intervene if there is fault in the way the Council made the decision and I have not seen any evidence of fault. The Council considered all the evidence, including potential risks, and the decision it reached is consistent with that evidence and the Blue Badge rules. It is correct the Council must consider existing coping strategies and that any child of this age needs supervision. As there is no suggestion of fault there is no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman