The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge. She says the Council is discriminating against her because she has a non-physical disability.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the medical evidence, Council assessment, Ms X’s appeal and the decision letters. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
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. People qualify if they get specific points with a benefit called Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
Ms X applied for a Blue Badge and submitted medical evidence relating to her hidden disability. The Council completed an assessment. The assessment notes show the Council considered Ms X’s application, medical evidence, appeal and the Blue Badge rules. The Council cross-referenced the evidence with the qualifying criteria and agreed Ms X experiences a degree of difficulty when travelling. But, it decided the evidence does not show her difficulties are to the extent that she qualifies for a badge under the hidden disability rules. The Council noted that Ms X’s PIP award does not passport her to a badge and it noted that she is often accompanied when she goes out. The guidance says councils should take into account existing coping mechanisms.
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 Ms X is eligible for a badge.
Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision and has explained how having a badge would help her. However, we can only intervene if there is fault in the way the Council made the decision. I have not seen any evidence of fault. The Council considered all the evidence and the decision it reached is consistent with that evidence and the Blue Badge rules. As there is no suggestion of fault there is no reason to start an investigation.
Ms X says the Council discriminated against her, and manipulated and dumbed down her evidence. I have not seen anything to support these allegations. The Council assessed the claim on the basis of Ms X’s hidden disability; the fact a council refuses an application is not an example of discrimination. The notes show the Council considered the points raised in the medical evidence and there is nothing to indicate the evidence has been manipulated, disregarded or dumbed down.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman