Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council.

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 information provided by the Council. This includes Mr X’s Blue Badge application, the mobility assessment report, letters from his doctors and a letter from Mr X declining a second mobility assessment. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

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 take into account factors such as pain, speed, balance, gait and shortness of breath when assessing if someone can walk 80 metres. Problems getting in and out of a car are not qualifying reasons to get a badge.

What happened

6. Mr X has long-term back problems and leg numbness. He also has some balance problems and a benign growth in his leg.
7. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor noted Mr X’s medical problems, his use of a stick, his drugs and falls. The assessor considered Mr X’s pain, breathlessness, gait and balance. The assessor watched Mr X walk 143 metres at a brisk pace with no stops. The Council decided Mr X is not eligible for a badge.
8. Mr X appealed. He provided some medical letters and said the Council did the assessment on a good day. He said he was about to have surgery on his leg and he had recently had two falls. He also said he needed access to wide parking spaces to help him get in and out of the car.
9. In response, the Council offered to do a second mobility assessment, after Mr X’s surgery. Mr X declined as he did not think there would be anything to be gained from a second assessment. He asked the Council to provide a badge. The Council closed the case because Mr X decided not to have another mobility assessment.

Assessment

10. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council has made a decision.
11. The Council considered the information Mr X provided on his application form and the findings of the mobility assessor. 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 Mr X walked more than 80 metres.
12. In addition, the difficulty Mr X has getting in and out cars is not a qualifying condition for a badge. And, the medical letters Mr X provided do not state he cannot walk 80 metres.
13. The Council offered a second assessment. This would have given the Council a chance to reassess Mr X following his surgery. I do not know if the Council would have changed its decision after a second assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman