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 reports and letters from his doctor. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to 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. A medical problem that means someone has an urgent need to use a toilet is not a qualifying condition for a badge.
6. The government is introducing new rules from 30 August 2019 which will make it easier for people with some hidden disabilities (for example, autism) to qualify for a badge. Not everyone with a hidden disability will qualify for a badge.

What happened

7. Mr X has a heart condition and cancer. The cancer means he can feel an urgent need to use a toilet. He applied for a Blue Badge. He said he needed a badge to help with parking when he needed a toilet.
8. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor noted Mr X’s medical problems, his drugs and that he does not use any walking aids. She noted that he had not had any falls but that he reported pain and breathlessness on hills. The assessor watched Mr X walk 80 metres at a brisk pace, with no stops and with a normal gait. He was able to talk during the walk which included a slight incline. The Council decided Mr X had not shown he has very considerable difficulty with walking. The Council decided Mr X does not qualify for a badge.
9. Mr X appealed. He said he had been out of breath at the end of the walk and he repeated that he needs prompt access to toilets. Mr X gave the Council hospital letters which confirmed the cancer diagnosis. Neither letter said Mr X could not walk 80 metres or said that he has considerable difficulty walking. One letter encouraged him to exercise.
10. The Council did a second mobility assessment. The findings were broadly the same. The assessor watched Mr X walk 80 metres at a brisk pace. He showed signs of minor breathlessness when walking on a slight hill. The assessor noted that Mr X has an angina attack every week which is alleviated by his spray. The assessor found that Mr X has full range of motion in his lower limbs. The Council confirmed its decision not to award a badge.

Assessment

11. 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.
12. 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. The Council carried out two mobility assessments and the findings were broadly similar in each. Mr X submitted letters from the hospital but neither says he has considerable difficulty with walking.
13. Mr X says he needs a badge so he can have quick access to a toilet. However, this is not a qualifying condition for a badge. Mr X could reapply after the new rules start but I do not know if he would qualify.
14. Mr X says he received text messages inviting him to the assessment after the date of the meeting. And he says the assessor was not properly informed. I appreciate these issues would be frustrating but they do not alter the fact that the Council properly assessed his application. Mr X also says that one of the radiators in the assessment centre was far too hot. This, however, has no bearing on the badge application.

Back to top

Final decision

15. 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