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 renew his 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 report and a letter from his doctor. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue badge guidance – in force when Mr X applied

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.

New guidance – from 30 August 2019

6. The new rules make it easier for people with hidden disabilities to qualify for a Blue Badge. Not everyone with a hidden disability will qualify for a badge under the new rules.

What happened

7. Mr X has had bowel surgery which can mean he needs to use a toilet urgently. In March he applied to renew his Blue Badge. He explained about his need to have quick access to toilets. He said he uses a stick and can struggle to walk longer distances. He said he can walk about 100 metres.
8. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor watched Mr X walk 80 metres, at a slow pace, unaided and with no stops. Mr X did not display pain or breathlessness and the assessor found that Mr X was not at risk of falls. The Council decided not to renew the badge.
9. Mr X appealed. The focus of his appeal was his need to park close to toilets and that he had benefitted from being able to park on yellow lines to access toilets. The Council considered his appeal but did not change its decision.
10. Mr X disagrees with the decision because councils are now giving badges to people with hidden disabilities.

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 and breathlessness. 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 and speed is not a qualifying factor when considered in isolation.
13. Mr X says he should qualify because he has a hidden disability. However, Mr X applied to renew his badge before the new rules started. Mr X could reapply and make it clear he is applying under the new rules. It would be for the Council, not the Ombudsman, to decide whether Mr X qualifies for a badge under the new rules.

Back to top

Final decision

14. 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