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 Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision not to award 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and information provided by the Council. This includes three mobility assessments carried out in 2019, medical evidence, complaint correspondence and details of Ms X’s Personal Independence (PIP) award. I invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue badge government guidance

4. 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.
5. People who receive eight PIP mobility points for moving around qualify for a badge. If someone receives four PIP mobility points then it means the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has decided they can walk between 50 metres and 200 metres.
6. The Council requires people to score 24 points to qualify for a badge. People do not qualify for a badge simply because they have many medical problems.

What happened

7. Ms X has a number of conditions which affect her back, chest, limbs and breathing. She has had many operations.
8. Ms X applied for a Blue Badge. During 2019 the Council did three mobility assessments. The second was an appeal and the third was offered because Ms X complained. In the first assessment Ms X scored 22 points. In the appeal she scored 16 points and in the third assessment, in September, she scored 21 points.
9. In the final assessment the assessor watched Ms X walk 180 metres with a brief stop at 150 metres. The assessor noted that Ms X walks with a slight limp and displayed slight shortness of breath. It was noted that Ms X reported generalised joint pain but her mobility was not significantly impaired.
10. In late 2019 the DWP awarded four PIP mobility points for moving around.
11. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to give her a badge. She questions the different points and says the Council ignored her PIP award. She wants the Council to give her a badge.

Assessment

12. 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.
13. The Council considered the information Ms X provided on her application form and the findings of the mobility assessors. The assessment notes show the assessors considered pain, distance, balance, breathlessness and walking aids. The notes show there was a proper consideration of each point. They also took into account the points Ms X made about her pain and ability to walk. The decision to refuse a badge is consistent with the guidance because Ms X walked more than 80 metres and, in the final assessment, she walked much further than 80 metres.
14. Ms X says the Council ignored her PIP award. However, this was awarded after she applied for a badge and four mobility points do not mean that Ms X qualifies for a badge. Instead, four points mean Ms X has been assessed as being able to walk 50 metres to 200 metres which is consistent with the Council’s findings.
15. Ms X has questioned the different points the Council awarded. However, this demonstrates that each assessor assessed each application on its merits. If each assessment was identical then it might suggest that the Council was not assessing each application on its own merits. In addition, each application scored less than 24 points.

Back to top

Final decision

16. 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