Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew the complainant’s Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to renew her 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 Mrs X’s Blue Badge application, medical evidence she submitted and the Council’s decision. I considered comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue Badge government guidance

4. To qualify for a badge the person must show they have an enduring and substantial disability which causes very considerable difficulty with walking. The guidance defines ‘enduring’ as being a disability which lasts for at least three years. It also says that the disability must be enduing at the time of assessment.
5. The guidance says a council cannot issue a badge to someone with a temporary disability or issue a badge for less than three years.

What happened

6. Mrs X applied to renew her Blue Badge. She has a problem with a knee which caused significant mobility problems. She provided supporting medical evidence. Mrs X explained she is due to have surgery this year which should improve her mobility.
7. The Council decided, in February, not to renew the badge because she has a temporary disability which should improve after surgery. The Council said she could reapply if she was still having mobility problems six months after surgery.
8. Mrs X disagrees with the decision. She says she is at risk of losing her independence if she does not have a badge.
9. After getting a draft of this decision Ms X explained that the pre-op assessment, booked for April, had just been cancelled and she had not been given a new date.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. This is because the Council’s decision that Mrs X does not qualify for a badge is consistent with the government guidance. Mrs X expects to have surgery this year which should improve her mobility. This means she does not have a disability which is expected to last three years. The Council’s decision reflects the guidance so there is no reason to start an investigation.
11. Mrs X’s pre-op assessment has just been cancelled which means there is now uncertainty about when Mrs X will have the surgery. But, the cancellation happened after the Council made its decision and did not form part of the Council’s decision making process. It is not something, therefore, that I can take into account because it happened after the Council made its decision. Mrs X could tell the Council that the assessment has been cancelled but I do not know if it would lead to the Council making a different decision. It would be for the Council to assess the new information.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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