Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about an application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council so an investigation is not warranted.

The complaint

1. Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue him with a Blue Badge. He says his condition has not improved since his last assessment and so he should be given 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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with 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 documents Mr B included with his complaint. This includes the mobility assessment report, Mr B’s appeal and the Council’s appeal report. I invited Mr B to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Department for Transport has issued guidance on the Blue Badge scheme for councils. The guidance says people who can walk more than 80 metres and do not demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking are not eligible for a Blue Badge. Councils should consider factors such as pain, speed, balance, gait and shortness of breath when assessing if someone can walk 80 metres. The guidance places the focus for determining eligibility on the mobility assessment rather than on evidence from the applicant’s doctor.
6. Mr B has back problems. He applied for a Blue Badge in 2014 and was successful.
7. Mr B applied for a renewal of his Blue Badge in November 2019. As he was not subject to an automatic renewal, he attended a mobility assessment. Mr B achieved a score of 15 and he needed 24 to be eligible. The assessor noted Mr B’s medical conditions and that he experienced continuous pain. The assessor also noted Mr B showed no signs of fatigue and he could walk at a regular pace.
8. Mr B appealed. He noted how he had provided the assessor with his medical documents on the day of the assessment but felt the assessor hadn’t read the documents thoroughly. He also alerted the Council to his medical conditions.
9. The Council reviewed Mr B’s application and told him his appeal was unsuccessful. This was because Mr B exceeded the 80-metre distance in the assessment and did not display an altered gait pattern. Mr B did not present as having a severely restricted mobility.
10. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there is the fault in the way the Council has made a decision. In Mr B’s case, the Council considered the information he provided on his application form and the findings of his mobility assessment. Mr B walked more than 80 metres without meeting the relevant criteria. The decision to refuse the Blue Badge is therefore consistent with the guidance. I understand Mr B is disappointed with the Council’s decision. But, based on the information available, it is unlikely we would find fault with how the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and so an investigation is not warranted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman