Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council refusing a Blue Badge application because it is unlikely we would find fault which has caused her to lose out on a Blue Badge.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a Blue Badge, for her child, B.

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 which included all the Blue Badge appeal documents.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

5. Mrs X applied for a Blue Badge for her child B in 2023. The Council refused it, and she complained to us. We closed that complaint in January 2024.
6. Mrs X reapplied in March 2024. The Council refused her application. She sought an internal Council appeal in June. The Council decided in August to again refuse the application.
7. Mrs X says B who is 13, has a hidden disability and not having a Blue Badge could increase their anxiety and other symptoms.

The Blue Badge Scheme

8. 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.
9. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
10. The DfT guidance sets out what assessors may wish to consider when assessing a person’s mobility. The guidance is non-statutory. This means councils do not have to follow it, but most councils do. We expect councils to explain if they decide not to follow such guidance.
11. The guidance says councils must make sure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation.
12. There are two types of eligibility criteria:
1. where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;
2. where a person is eligible subject to further assessment, they have to fulfil one of two criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:

• 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

• have a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.

13. Applicants who can walk more than 80 metres and do not display very considerable difficulty walking for any other reason, including very considerable psychological distress, or serious risk to themselves or others, would not be eligible. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

Mrs X’s case

14. Mrs X’s application does not qualify to be ‘eligible without further assessment’. The Council considered the information and evidence Mrs X supplied. It decided there was “no submitted evidence that the applicant has very considerable psychological distress when walking or taking a journey, or they are at risk of serious harm to themselves or to others in the context of travel”. None of the evidence and information Mrs X has supplied has suggested this is wrong.
15. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision to its internal appeals’ process. Her appeal was not upheld. She complained to us.
16. The Council’s decision letter of December 2023 said she could not reapply for nine months unless her circumstances had changed significantly. Mrs X applied within four months. There are only two pieces of additional supporting evidence from the school’s head teacher and CAHMS. Neither mention mobility, or walking or a need for a Blue Badge or travel related distress. It is not clear why the Council accepted this new application so soon after rejecting the previous application.

Analysis

17. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is not to ask whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
18. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding to refuse the Blue Badge. In making its decision, the organisation took account of the relevant guidance, information from medical advisors who knew Y, its own policies and information from Mrs X.
19. It is unlikely our investigation would find fault in its decision which has caused Mrs X to miss out on a Blue Badge.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault which has caused her an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman