Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue a Blue Badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council in the way it made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused to issue him with a Blue Badge and did not consider the pain he suffers or that his condition is lasting. He says without a Blue Badge he cannot take part in family life and would like the Council to issue him with one.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes Mr X’s Blue Badge application, mobility assessments and GP letter. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge. He explained, due to his condition, he needs a stick to help him walk and can only walk short distances before getting out of breath. He suffers with pain all over his body which is worse when walking and due to problems linked to his condition, needs to access toilet facilities immediately.
6. The Council considered Mr X’s application under the criteria of: Eligible subject to further assessment.
7. To qualify under these criteria, an applicant must be more than two years old and fall within one or more of the following descriptions:
1. drives a vehicle regularly, has a severe disability in both arms and is unable to operate, or has considerable difficulty in operating, all or some types of parking meter; or
2. 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; or
• Be at risk of serious harm when walking; or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person.
3. The disability experienced by the applicant must have endured for at least three years.

8. The Council refused to issue Mr X with a Blue Badge as it assessed he did not meet the criteria. Mr X appealed the decision and attended a second face-to-face mobility assessment.
9. The Council considered Mr X’s application along with the information from the mobility assessment and upheld its decision to not issue a Blue Badge.
10. The assessment notes show the assessor properly considered pain, distance, balance, breathlessness and walking aids. The notes also say the assessor watched Mr X walk further than 80 metres, with only a small pause, at a normal pace.
11. The assessment notes say Mr X had not explored all treatment options for his condition and a Blue Badge would reduce the opportunities to walk, exercise and implement strategies as part of regular journeys.
12. We do not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council made its decision. The Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge is consistent with the evidence and the guidance so there is no reason to start an investigation.
13. Mr X can reapply for a Blue Badge six months after the Council decision, should any treatment not change his mobility needs or should his condition worsen.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council in the way it made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman