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

The complaint

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

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes Ms X’s application, supporting evidence and two mobility assessment reports. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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 qualify if they receive certain elements of Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
5. 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 consider factors such as pain, speed, balance, gait and shortness of breath when assessing if someone can walk 80 metres. The guidance says that people who walk slowly will not be eligible if that is the only qualifying factor.
6. Ms X applied for a badge. The Council carried out two mobility assessments and considered information about her work and evidence from her GP. The Council knew Ms X receives PIP but not at a level that passports her to a badge. The Council also noted that Ms X was not awarded PIP points for problems with moving around or for feeling psychological distress when walking.
7. During the mobility assessments the assessors noted that Ms X reported she could walk 450 metres and they observed her walking 90 metres. They noted she did not report any pain, did not stop but was breathless when she stopped walking at 90 metres. They saw that Ms X walked at a slow speed with an irregular posture but without using any walking aids. They considered Ms X’s reports of falls, pain, medication and work-place adjustments.
8. The Council decided Ms X does not qualify for a badge. Ms X disagrees.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. We are not an appeal body and can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council made a decision. I have no power to award a badge and it is not my role to decide if someone is entitled to a badge.
10. The Council considered the information Ms X provided on her application form, the findings of the mobility assessors and information from her GP. The assessment notes show the assessors considered pain, distance, balance, breathlessness, falls and walking aids. The notes show there was a proper consideration of each point. In addition, the decision to refuse a badge is consistent with the guidance because Ms X walked more than 80 metres and speed is not a qualifying factor when considered in isolation.
11. I appreciate Ms X disagrees with the decision and believes she would benefit from a badge. However, I can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made the decision and I see no suggestion of fault.

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