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 a letter from her doctor. I invited Ms 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. The guidance says that people who walk slowly will not be eligible if that is the only qualifying factor.
6. The guidance says the Council should base its decision on the mobility assessment rather than on information from the applicant’s doctor.

What happened

7. Ms X has a breathing condition and problems affecting her back, hips and knees. She applied to renew her Blue badge.
8. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor noted Ms X’s medical problems, her report of the pain she feels and the drugs she takes. The assessor was aware that Ms X has fallen in the past and walks with a stick. The assessor watched Ms X walk 159 metres at a slow speed. The assessor observed that Ms X walked at a steady pace, using her stick, and did not walk with a limp or appear to be short of breath. The assessor watched Ms X use some stairs. The assessor observed no signs of significant pain during the walk and no impaired balance. The assessor saw no evidence of impaired mobility over 80 metres. The Council decided not to renew Ms X’s badge.
9. Ms X appealed and provided supporting medical evidence. The Council reconsidered the case but did not change its decision.

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 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.
12. In addition, while the hospital doctor supported Ms X’s appeal, the guidance says the Council should base its decision on the mobility assessment rather than on medical evidence.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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