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 issue a Blue Badge. He says the Council has discriminated against him.

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 and evidence of Mr X’s PIP award (PIP is a disability benefit). I considered emails Mr X sent in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue badge government guidance

5. People who are registered as severely sight impaired or blind automatically qualify for a badge. People who are registered as partially sighted do not automatically qualify.
6. People who receive eight moving around points with PIP, or have ten PIP points because they cannot undertake a journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress (descriptor E), qualify for a badge.
7. People who do not automatically qualify for a badge must show they are unable to walk or experience considerable difficulty when walking. Difficulty in walking can include considerable psychological distress. People should provide medical evidence of any psychological distress they experience. The guidance says the Council should take into account any support the person receives which can help to manage any psychological distress. This could include being supported by another person.

What happened

8. Mr X has a visual impairment. He applied for a Blue Badge and provided proof that he receives PIP descriptor F. He also provided a certificate from 2007 which said he is registered as partially sighted.
9. The Council did a mobility assessment. Mr X explained that he sometimes has back pain caused by bending over to see things. He said he can lose his balance, feel dizzy or have headaches. He explained he feels anxious, particularly when in an unfamiliar place, but he is usually supported at such times by another person. The assessor noted that Mr X does not take any medication and had an appointment to see an eye doctor in April. The assessor watched Mr X walk 71 metres at a normal speed, with no rests, no shortness of breath and with a normal stride.
10. The Council decided Mr X had not demonstrated he has considerable difficulty in walking. In reaching this decision it was aware of Mr X had reported feeling anxious and it invited him to provide medical evidence that he cannot travel because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress. It also invited him to provide a certificate showing his current level of visual impairment.
11. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. He says it has discriminated against him and said he is not “visually impaired enough” to qualify for a badge. Mr X has indicated that he will give the Council some additional medical evidence.

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. Mr X does not automatically qualify for a badge because he has not provided evidence that he is severely sight impaired or blind, or that he receives PIP descriptor E. If Mr X’s registration changes he can provide evidence of this to the Council. In addition, while the Council has decided Mr X has not shown he qualifies due to feeling overwhelming psychological distress, it will reconsider this if Mr X provides supporting evidence. I can only consider the Council’s response up to when Mr X made his complaint to the Ombudsman.
14. The Council also considered Mr X’s ability to walk in terms of pain, distance, speed, and manner of walking. But, as Mr X demonstrated he can walk 71 metres with no evidence of difficulty, the Council decided he does not qualify for a badge.
15. The Council’s decision is consistent with the guidance so there is no reason to start an investigation. In addition, there is no suggestion of discrimination and it is not my role to decide if Mr X qualifies for a badge.

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