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 Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to renew her 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 Ms X’s Blue Badge application, the mobility assessment report and letters from her doctors. I invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue badge government guidance

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. The guidance says that people who walk slowly will not be eligible if that is the only qualifying factor.

What happened

6. Ms X has a range of medical conditions including problems with her spine, hips and arms. She applied to renew her Blue Badge in July 2018.
7. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor took a detailed medical history and noted that Ms X takes paracetamol and had been referred to a pain clinic. The assessor listened to Ms X’s account of the pain and shortness of breath she feels. The assessor watched Ms X walk more than 220 metres, at a slow speed, using a walking stick. The walk included a slight slope. The assessor recorded that there were no problems with Ms X’s posture, rhythm, co-ordination and stride. The assessor noted that Ms X showed slight breathing difficulties but was able to walk and talk. The Council accepted that Ms X has medical problems but decided she had not demonstrated that she has very considerable difficulty with walking. The Council decided not to renew the badge. The Council said she could reapply in 12 months time.

Assessment

8. 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.
9. The Council considered the information Ms X provided on her 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 Ms X walked more than 80 metres and speed is not a qualifying factor when considered in isolation.
10. Ms X is approaching 12 months since she last applied for a badge. She could make a new application to the Council once 12 months have passed. It will be for the Council to decide if Ms X qualifies for a badge if she makes a new application.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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