Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms 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 Ms X’s Blue Badge application, the mobility assessment report and information from her doctor. I invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue badge government guidance

4. People qualify for a badge if they are unable to walk, experience considerable difficulty when walking or are at serious risk of harm when walking.
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.
6. Some awards of a benefit called Personal Independence Payment (PIP) mean people qualify for a badge without further assessment. This includes people who have been awarded eight PIP points for moving around or 10 points because going on a journey causes overwhelming psychological distress.

What happened

7. Ms X applied to renew her Blue Badge. She provided proof that she receives PIP but not at the rates that passport to a badge. Ms X did not provide any information on the form about her mobility.
8. The Council did a mobility assessment. The Council noted that Ms X has some bladder problems and that she had referred to the expense of parking. It was also aware that Ms X had a brain haemorrhage in 2016 and now has routine monitoring. Ms X explained that she goes for 10 minute daily walks, walking at a slow pace.
9. The Council asked Ms X’s hospital doctor to provide information. In response the hospital said, “the doctor is unable to support Ms X’s application for a blue badge because she has no significant physical impairment and is independently mobile.”
10. The Council decided not to renew the badge because Ms X had not demonstrated she has considerable difficulty when walking.
11. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision. She says the brain haemorrhage left her with a 20% chance of survival and has left her feeling constantly tired. She has to rest before and after any event.

Assessment

12. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. We do not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council has made a decision. We have no power to award a badge.
13. I have considered all the evidence considered by the Council and I see no suggestion of fault in the way it decided Ms X does not qualify for a badge. This is because the evidence does not show Ms X cannot walk 80 metres. Ms X’s doctor said Ms X has no significant impairment and is independently mobile. In addition, on the PIP assessment, Ms X scored zero points for her ability to walk which means she was assessed as being able to walk more than 200 metres. Ms X also confirmed to the assessor that she goes for daily walks. Ms X has been very unwell in the past, and experiences tiredness, but the evidence supports the Council’s decision that she does not qualify for a badge.

Back to top

Final decision

14. 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