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 letters from his doctors. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to 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. Difficulty getting out a car, or problems caused by driving, are not qualifying factors.

What happened

6. Mr X has heart and knee problems. He applied to renew his Blue Badge. He said he experiences breathlessness and pain when walking.
7. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor noted Mr X’s medical conditions, drugs and use of walking aids. She explored his perception of pain and shortness of breath and noted he has not fallen in the past year. She assessed the functionality of his limbs. The assessor watched Mr X walk 168 metres at a slow to very slow speed. She recorded that he paused for a few brief moments and reported breathlessness. She noted that he walked with good posture, rhythm, coordination and did not limp. Mr X did not report pain and the assessor did not observe significate shortness of breath. The assessor watched Mr X walk indoors, outdoors and on a slope. Mr X reported he has problems after driving and getting out of his car. The Council decided not to renew his badge.
8. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. He says the mobility assessment did not reflect the reality of his life particularly in relation to the difficulties he may have when he tries to walk after driving and getting out of his car.

Assessment

9. 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.
10. 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, none of the medical evidence Mr X supplied said he cannot walk 80 metres. This means that, while the emphasis should be on an independent mobility assessment rather than evidence from the applicant’s doctor, there is no other evidence which directly contradicts the Council’s findings.
11. Mr X says the mobility assessment did not reflect the reality of his life. However, the Council carried out the assessment in accordance with the guidance and there is no suggestion of fault in the way it was carried out. The assessor noted Mr X’s report that he can get breathless after leaving his car but she watched him walk significantly further than 80 metres.
12. Mr X says his heart symptoms have worsened. If there has been a significant deterioration he can submit a new badge application to the Council. It would be for the Council, not the Ombudsman, to assess a new application.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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