Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify 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 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 previous complaint to us and the mobility assessment report. 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. 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.
5. Ms X complained to us about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. We asked the Council to do a face to face mobility assessment and reconsider the application.
6. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor took details of Ms X’s medical problems, her medication, history of falls and that her eating disorder has improved. The assessor noted that Ms X does not receive disability benefits. The assessor watched Ms X walk 125 metres at a normal speed while pushing a wheelchair. Ms X reported a pain level of seven but the assessor did not see any signs of pain. Ms X did not take any rests and the assessor noted she had no breathing problems and walked with normal posture, stride, rhythm and balance. The Council decided that Ms X does not qualify for a badge.
7. Ms X says she does not complain about her pain so the assessor was unaware. She says she sits in the wheelchair and does not only push it. Ms X says her eating disorder was ignored.
8. 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. We have no power to award a badge and it is not my role to decide if someone is eligible for a badge.
9. The Council considered the information Ms X provided on her application form and the findings of the face to face mobility assessment. The assessment notes show the assessor considered pain, distance, balance, breathlessness 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, she was able to walk this distance while pushing, rather than sitting in a wheelchair.
10. Ms X says the assessor was unaware of her pain. But, the notes show the assessor explored pain and Ms X reported her pain levels. In addition, Ms X explained that she no longer receives regular treatment for an eating disorder because she is now a healthy weight. Again, this information was considered by the assessor.
11. I can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council assessed the application and I see no evidence 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