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 Mr X, says he is entitled to a Blue Badge because he has 10 points with the Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered Mr X’s application, the Council’s assessment and the medical evidence provided by Mr X. I also considered the government guidance, Mr X’s PIP award and comments he made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue badge

4. People qualify for a badge if they are unable to walk, experience very considerable difficulty when walking (including psychological distress) or are at serious risk when walking or pose a serious risk to other people.
5. People who have been awarded 10 PIP points with descriptor E (cannot undertake a journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress) automatically qualify for a badge. There are other descriptors which have 10 PIP points which do not passport the person to a badge. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decides if a person is eligible for PIP and what descriptors to award. The DWP if not part of the Council.

What happened

6. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge. He explained he has a significant hearing loss, mental health problems and an irritable bladder which can mean he needs prompt access to a toilet. Mr X receives 10 PIP points under descriptor D (cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid). Mr X gave the Council proof of his PIP award and supporting medical evidence.
7. The Council decided Mr X does not automatically qualify for a badge because he receives PIP descriptor D.
8. The Council then considered if Mr X qualifies under the discretionary rules. The Council accepted that Mr X may struggle to plan a journey and that he can have problems due to panic attacks. It recognised he can feel overwhelmed at times and may feel fearful in open spaces. It was also aware of the problems Mr X had reported about needing easy access to toilets. The Council accepted Mr X has some difficulties when walking but decided he does not qualify for a badge. It decided he does not experience considerable difficulty when walking and was neither at risk nor posed a risk to other people.
9. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision because he has 10 PIP points. He says it is a legal requirement for the Council to give him a badge. He says the Council gave different reasons for refusing the badge.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
11. The rules say a person automatically qualifies for a badge if they receive PIP descriptor E. Mr X receives 10 PIP points but under descriptor D not E. The Council’s decision that Mr X does not automatically qualify for a badge is consistent with the rules and there is no suggestion of fault.
12. The Council considered if Mr X qualifies under the discretionary rules. It considered issues such as risk, awareness, anxiety, ability to cope and control. It accepted Mr X has some health difficulties and some problems when walking. But, it did not accept these difficulties are severe enough to qualify for a badge. In addition, the rules do not say someone is entitled to a badge purely because they have many health issues. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and I have not seen any fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
13. Mr X says the Council gave different reasons as to why he is not entitled to a badge, particularly in relation to the PIP points. I appreciate this may have been frustrating but I can confirm that it is correct that Mr X’s PIP does not entitlement him to a badge.

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