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

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the way the Council assessed his application for a Blue Badge. He says he was not assessed by a suitable person and the Council only considered his walking rather than the wider application criteria. Mr X would like compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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))
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 considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes Mr X’s application and letters to the Council, his medical evidence and the mobility assessment reports. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

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. People can also qualify if they experience considerable psychological distress when walking or if walking puts them or other people at risk of harm. Some people with a hidden disability may qualify for a badge. Not everyone with a hidden disability will qualify. People who receive eight moving around points with PIP qualify for a badge.
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.
7. Mr X applied to renew his badge. The focus of his application was the physical problems he has with walking and the pain he feels. The Council did a mobility assessment but decided not to renew his badge. This was because Mr X walked more than 80 metres and the assessor did not observe that he had significant problems when walking that distance.
8. Mr X challenged the decision at least twice. The Council did another mobility assessment and considered the impact of Mr X’s mental health needs. The Council again found that Mr X walked more than 80 metres, without demonstrating considerable difficulty, and it found no evidence that he suffers considerable psychological distress when walking.
9. Mr X was then awarded PIP with eight moving around points. The Council awarded a badge based on the PIP. The decision maker, for PIP, decided not to award PIP points for feeling psychological distress when walking.
10. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council considered all the relevant factors when it assessed the application and the assessment was done by a nurse and an Occupational Therapist. The Council considered Mr X’s medical evidence and the hidden disability rules.
11. We are not an appeal body and cannot say that the Council should or could have reached a different decision. I can only consider if the Council followed the correct process and it did.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I 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