Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to give the complainant 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, says the Council has misinterpreted the law and discriminated against her as a disabled person. She says the Council is wrong to reject her mental health as a qualifying condition for 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 got some information from the Council. This includes a copy of Ms X’s Personal Independence Payment (PIP) benefit award letter. 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. People who receive at least eight moving around points within PIP qualify for a badge.

New rules from 30 August 2019

6. New rules will make it easier for some people with hidden disabilities to qualify for a badge. This could include people with mental health problems. People who score 10 PIP points, under descriptor E, because they cannot undertake a journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress, will qualify for a badge. People who score 12 PIP points, under descriptor F, because they need help from another person to make a journey, will not automatically qualify for a badge. Not everyone who is disabled, or has a mental health problem or a hidden disability, will qualify for a badge under the new rules.

What happened

7. Ms X says her mobility is severely affected. She also has a mental health condition. Ms X receives PIP points for needing help with daily living. She also receives 12 PIP points for needing someone with her when she goes out. I seen the PIP letter which states she receives no PIP points for problems with moving around (this means the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decided Ms X can walk more than 200 metres).
8. In late 2018 Ms X applied for a Blue Badge. She said she qualified due to her PIP points. The Council decided not to award a badge because she did not have PIP points for moving around.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. When the Council rejected the application there was no evidence that Ms X cannot walk more than 80 metres. Instead the DWP stated in the PIP decision letter that Ms X can walk at least 200 metres. In addition, Ms X did not automatically qualify for a badge due to her PIP award and, under the pre-August rules, mental health conditions are not a qualifying factor for a badge.
10. Ms X might qualify for a badge under the new rules. Ms X could send the Council a new Blue Badge application, after 30 August, to see if she qualifies under the new rules. I do not know if she will qualify and it would be for the Council, not the Ombudsman, to decide if Ms X does qualify under the new rules.

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