Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, the Council will accept a new application from the complainant.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to award a Blue Badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and got some information from the Council. This includes the application form, supporting medical evidence and the decision made by the panel. I considered comments made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue Badge guidance

5. People qualify for a badge if they are unable to walk, experience considerable difficulty when walking or are at serious risk of harm when walking. The problems can include feeling overwhelming psychological distress when walking or posing a risk to others (this is sometimes referred to as the hidden disability rules).
6. The guidance says that people who can walk 80 metres and do not demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking are not eligible for a badge. Councils should take into account factors such as pain, speed, balance, gait and shortness of breath when assessing if someone can walk 80 metres. Councils usually assess someone’s physical ability to walk by doing a mobility assessment.
7. The guidance says councils should take into account any coping mechanisms someone has. This includes the support they receive from another person.

What happened

8. Mr X has Alzheimer’s, breathing difficulties and a tendency to fall. He applied for a Blue Badge under the hidden disability rules. He supplied medical evidence which confirmed his breathing affects his walking and he has had several falls. The evidence also confirmed that he is always accompanied by his wife. Mrs X says her husband has forgotten how to walk and tends to shuffle.
9. The Council considered all the evidence but decided Mr X had not demonstrated that walking causes considerable psychological distress or that, while out, he is at risk of harm or poses a risk. In reaching this view the Council took into account that Mr X is always accompanied by his wife.
10. The Council thought Mr X might qualify due to his falls so it offered a mobility assessment. Mrs X declined to have an assessment as she was not sure what purpose it would serve.
11. The Council decided not to award a badge as there was insufficient evidence that Mr X qualifies under the hidden disability rules and Mrs X had declined a mobility assessment.
12. Mrs X says she would now be willing for Mr X to have a mobility assessment. The Council says it will allow Mr X to make a new application. Normally Mr X would have to wait until June to reapply but the Council will accept a new application now as Mrs X says Mr X’s health has deteriorated and because she has agreed to a mobility assessment.

Assessment

13. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. We do not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council has made a decision. I have no power to award a badge.
14. The Council decided Mr X does not qualify for a badge under the hidden disability rules. Mr X faces significant challenges but the evidence does not demonstrate that he meets the hidden disability rules. The Council’s decision is consistent with the rules, guidance and the evidence, so there is no reason to start an investigation. In particular, the rules, and the research done before the new rules came into place, say that the problems experienced by people with dementia will often be ameliorated by support from another person.
15. There is evidence that Mr X might qualify under the rules relating to physical mobility. For example, there is evidence of poor walking style, breathing problems and falls. The Council acted appropriately by inviting Mr X to have a mobility assessment. If Mr X had had an assessment the Council might have decided he qualified for a badge. But, the Council was not able to fully assess Mr X’s physical mobility because he declined to have an assessment. The guidance says people with a combination of dementia and physical problems may qualify for a badge but the Council needed the evidence from a mobility assessment to determine this.
16. The Council will accept a new application from Mr X. Mr X may find it beneficial to state he is applying under the physical and hidden disability rules and to have a mobility assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, the Council says Mr X can make a new application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman