Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew the complainant’s Blue Badge. This is because the Council has offered to do a mobility assessment and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to renew his Blue Badge. He says the Council has ignored his evidence. Mr X wants the Council to renew the 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:

• the Council has offered a fair remedy; or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and information from the Council. This includes Mr X’s application, the Council’s assessment, and a letter of appeal from Mr X’s daughter. I invited Mr 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. Councils usually do face to face mobility assessments to assess someone’s ability to walk. The Council suspended face to face assessments, due to COVID-19, and did telephone assessments. The Council is now resuming face to face assessments.

What happened

6. Mr X applied to review his Blue Badge. The Council carried out a telephone assessment. The Council decided not to renew the badge. The Council said Mr X could walk 100 metres and there was no evidence of falls.
7. Mr X’s daughter sent an appeal. She said Mr X had fallen on steps. The Council considered the appeal but did not change its decision.
8. Mr X says the Council ignored what he said. Mr X says he can only walk 100 metres if he stops several times. He says the Council ignored his emails when he explained he has falls.
9. The Council has no record of receiving any emails from Mr X. The Council has written to Mr X to say it is resuming face to face assessments and has offered him an appointment.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because the Council has offered Mr X a face to face mobility assessment. This will give the Council another opportunity to assess Mr X’s mobility and allow Mr X to elaborate on his mobility problems and falls. If we started an investigation, and upheld the complaint, then the most likely outcome would be that we would ask the Council to do a fresh assessment. So, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome and I have no power to tell the Council to renew Mr X’s badge.
11. Mr X can make a new complaint to the Ombudsman if he is still dissatisfied after the Council has done the mobility assessment and made a new decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because the Council has offered to do a mobility assessment and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman