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 in the way it made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to properly consider his mobility issues and their effect on his life when it decided not to award him 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 from Mr X and information provided by the Council. This included Mr X’s Blue Badge application, the mobility assessment report and the appeal documents. I also sent Mr X a copy of the draft decision for his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Blue Badge Guidance says that people who can walk 80 metres and do not demonstrate very considerable difficulty whilst 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 this.
6. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge. In his application he told the Council about his medical issues. And that the pain and swelling in his knees increased when walking, he suffered from painful burning feet and breathlessness and dizziness which affected his balance.
7. The Council carried out a mobility assessment. The assessor noted Mr X’s medical issues. He wouldn’t attempt the balance exercises or use of stairs. The assessor recorded that Mr X walked 100m, on elbow crutches, at a very slow pace, with several short rests. The assessor observed no fatigue or breathlessness, noted mild pain and discomfort, although severe pain was reported. The assessor’s conclusion was that Mr X did not have very considerable difficulty whilst walking.
8. The Council told him in October 2019 that his application had been unsuccessful because he didn’t meet the criteria. It advised him of his appeal rights and the further information he could submit, which included physiotherapists’ reports.
9. Mr X appealed. He said his mobility and the effect on him hadn’t been considered by the assessor. He provided medical evidence confirming his elective right knee arthroscopy in March 2017, the physiotherapy treatment he’d received in 2017/2018 and the 5 physiotherapy sessions he’d had in 2019 for his bilateral knee pain.
10. In November 2019, after considering the appeal, the Council told Mr X it had been unsuccessful. It said the further information hadn’t changed the decision. The information provided, together with the assessment were not enough to suggest he had very considerable difficulty whilst walking but if his mobility worsened he could make a new application in 6 months time.
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 the complaint 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 report shows the assessor properly considered pain, distance, balance, breathlessness and walking aids. It then reconsidered the application and mobility assessment together with further information he provided for his appeal.
13. Mr X has told us he was wrongly advised by the Council that he wasn’t allowed to submit a GP’s report and because of this, the assessor didn’t have any medical evidence available at the time of the mobility assessment. This makes no difference to my view because the assessor’s conclusions were based on the observation of Mr X’s walking ability at the assessment.
14. Mr X also believes the Council decided not to award a Blue Badge because he had complained about the way he had been treated by Council staff during the application process. But I have seen no evidence to suggest the decision was based on anything other than the assessor’s conclusion that he did not have very considerable difficulty whilst walking.
15. Mr X has said that he is in the process of obtaining a report from his consultant covering all his medical issues and he is also due to have an MRI scan. When the Council told Mr X his appeal had been unsuccessful, it explained that he could make a new application in six months time if his mobility worsened. So it is open to Mr X to make a further application, supported by any further medical evidence he has obtained by then.
16. I do not consider there is anything to show any fault by the Council in the way it made its decision not to award Mr X a Blue Badge.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman