Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew the complainant’s 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, complains that the Council has decided 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 the Council’s response. I considered the mobility assessment report and a letter inviting Ms X to make a new application when the new rules start. I considered comments Ms X’s representative 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.

New rules from 30 August 2019

6. The 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 or conditions such as autism. People who score 10 Personal Independence Points (PIP), 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 or a hidden disability, will qualify for a badge under the new rules.
7. Under the old and new rules, people who score eight moving around points under PIP qualify for a badge.

What happened

8. Ms X has a range of significant disabilities which she has had since birth. She needs constant support. She also has a problem with her knees. Ms X receives 12 PIP points because she needs help to plan a journey. Ms X has no moving around points under PIP.
9. In June Ms X applied to renew her Blue Badge. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor noted Ms X’s medical conditions, her drugs and that she reported experiencing some pain and having regular falls. The assessor was aware Ms X had a hip operation in May 2018. The assessor watched Ms X walk 90 metres at a brisk speed with no stops. She had a normal walking pattern, did not use any walking aids and demonstrated normal function in her lower limbs. The assessor watched Ms X climb some stairs. The Council decided Ms X had not demonstrated she has considerable difficulty with walking. The Council decided not to renew the badge.
10. Ms X’s representative contacted the Council to say the loss of the badge was causing considerable distress and upset to Ms X. In response the Council suggested Ms X reapply after the new rules start.
11. Ms X applied under the new rules. The Council refused the application because Ms X does not have the necessary PIP points.

Assessment

12. 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.
13. 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 she scored no points in the moving around section of PIP.
14. Ms X’s representative says the loss of the badge has had a negative impact and means Ms X can no longer attend medical appointments and social events. She says it has been hugely damaging to Ms X’s well-being. She says the Council should have delayed reassessing Ms X until the new rules started. When the representative made these comments she was certain Ms X would be awarded the badge under the new rules. I do not dispute the impact on Ms X but as the second application was unsuccessful, and I have not seen any suggestion of fault in the way the Council assessed the first application, then I have decided not to consider this complaint further.
15. If Ms X wishes to dispute the outcome of the second application she would need to appeal to the Council and could then make a new complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

16. 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