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.

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 reports and a hospital letter from 2016. 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.
6. The guidance encourages use of mobility assessments to determine eligibility. The guidance does not recommend a second physical assessment if someone asks for a review or appeal. There is no legal requirement for a review or appeal but many councils offer one.
7. If a council refuses a badge because it thinks the application has been based on a false representation or previous mis-use of a badge, then the person has 28 days to appeal to the Secretary of State and then to the magistrates’ court.

What happened

8. Mr X had a stoke in 2016. I have seen a hospital letter which confirmed a “probable small cerebrovascular event”. He applied for a badge in 2019. He explained that he has problems with his foot, that he tends to trip and he has to stop after walking about 50 metres due to a lack of energy. In a subsequent email Mr X said he needs a badge to help with parking and to help him walk longer distances.
9. The Council initially did a desk based assessment and decided Mr X did not qualify for a badge. It then did a face-to-face mobility assessment. The assessor noted his medical conditions and that Mr X feels his problems are getting worse. She noted that he uses a stick to help with balance. She watched him walk 80 metres, at a slow speed, and with a mild degree of difficulty, discomfort and breathlessness. The assessor recorded that Mr X walks with a stiff gait but safely. She noted that Mr X reported pain but that he also does not take pain medication. The Council decided Mr X did not qualify for a badge.
10. Mr X challenged the decision. The Council did an appeal assessment by phone. A different assessor considered the same issues as on the first assessor. But, she also noted that Mr X has not had any falls in the last six months, that he has some osteoarthritis in his arm, and can experience slow thought processes. She made reference to the 2016 hospital letter and noted that Mr X has some weakness on the right side. She also recorded that Mr X can get fatigue. The second assessor decided that Mr X’s walking ability was more restricted than the first assessor thought but remained of the view that Mr X’s walking is not so limited that he qualifies for a badge.

Assessment

11. 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. I have no power to issue a badge.
12. The Council considered the information Mr X provided on his 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. 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. The Council did not refuse the application due to concerns over mis-use or mis-representation.
13. Mr X says the Council has not complied with the law and he is aware he could complain to the Secretary of State and the court. He says the appeal assessment was converted to a phone interview due to Covid-19 and says a council must do a physical assessment. He also thinks the Council confused his assessment or application with someone else’s application.
14. The Council did a face-to-face assessment and there is no legal requirement, or guidance, for a council to do a second personal assessment. I have read all the assessments and they are consistent with each other. There is nothing to suggest the Council confused Mr X with someone else or that the Council failed to follow the law or guidance. The law gives a council the power to refuse an application if it decides someone has not shown they are eligible for a badge.
15. Mr X could appeal to the Secretary of State but such an approach may be unsuccessful because the Council did not refuse the application due to mis-use and because more than 28 days have passed since the Council refused the application.

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