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 summary of the decision reached by the appeal panel. I invited Mr 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. Mr X applied to renew his Blue Badge. He has a permanent medical condition. On his renewal form he explained that he has a shuffling type walk and uses a stick. He said he experiences some shortness of breath.
7. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor noted Mr X’s main medical condition and that he also has back pain for which he takes pain killers. The assessor watched Mr X walk 126 meters at a slow speed, using a walking stick. He stopped once during the walk but did not need to sit down. Mr X did not display significant pain or shortness of breath. He safely managed a turn and slope and showed a good stride length, floor clearance and reciprocal gait. Mr X reported balance problems but said he had not had any falls. Mr X reported a minor increase in effort during the course of the walk. The Council accepts Mr X has a permanent medical condition but decided he had not shown he has very considerable difficulty with walking. The Council decided not to renew the badge.
8. Mr X challenged the decision. He said his condition has deteriorated, he cannot walk the distance he mistakenly recorded on the renewal form, he experiences pain, and weight loss has caused a loss of strength.
9. Four judges considered the appeal. One thought the decision was harsh and recommended Mr X’s badge be renewed. But, the other three judges agreed with the findings of the mobility assessment. They noted Mr X can reapply in six months time or if his mobility deteriorates. The Council confirmed its decision not to renew the badge.

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 Mr X provided on his 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 Mr X walked more than 80 metres and speed is not a qualifying factor when considered in isolation. In addition, there was an appeal and while this was unsuccessful, the fact that one judge supported Mr X, shows there was a proper consideration of the case.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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