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 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)
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 Mrs X’s Blue Badge application, the mobility assessment report and a GP report. I invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue badge government guidance

5. 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.
6. 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.

What happened

7. Mrs X applied to renew her Blue Badge. She explained she feels pain when walking, gets breathless and has some bladder issues. She said she can walk to the newsagents and was waiting for surgery for a hernia.
8. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor noted Mrs X’s medical problems and that Mrs X’s reported that her whole body is affected by arthritis. The assessor watched Mrs X walk 70m at a slow pace without taking any rests. The assessor was aware that Mrs X had already walked from the car park and had not reported any breathlessness. The assessor noted no breathlessness after the observed walk and observed that Mrs X showed good balance and was well-coordinated. The assessor noted Mrs X’s reports of pain and considered pain for her limbs and for the hernia. The assessor noted that Mrs X did not use a stick and had not had any recent falls. The Council decided Mrs X does not qualify for a badge because she had not shown she has considerable difficulty walking.
9. Mrs X appealed. She sent a report from her GP, explained the assessor had only focussed on her hernia which is a temporary problem, and explained that she only walks the 400m round trip to the newsagent, once a week, after taking painkillers.
10. In response, the Council considered Mrs X’s 2017 application for a badge when it was noted that Mrs X walked 100m while leaning heavily on the assessor, showing significant breathlessness, and having to use her inhaler. The Council noted that in 2017 Mrs X had started to take new medication for her heart condition. The Council also noted that the GP report did not list arthritis as a current problem. The Council checked and found that the walk to the newsagent is about 160m. The Council reviewed all the evidence but did not change its position.

Assessment

11. 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. I have no power to award a badge.
12. The Council considered the information Mrs X provided on her application form and the findings of the mobility assessor. The assessment notes show the assessor considered pain, distance, balance, breathlessness and walking aids. The notes show there was a proper consideration of each point. The decision to refuse a badge is consistent with the guidance because speed is not a qualifying factor when considered in isolation.
13. The notes show the assessor considered pain as a separate issue from the pain caused by the hernia. The notes also show the Council compared the original application with the renewal which showed that Mrs X’s mobility was more restricted in 2017. The Council also considered the evidence from the GP but there was nothing in that evidence that stated Mrs X’s mobility is so restricted that she qualifies for a badge. The Council’s decision not to renew the badge is consistent with the evidence and the guidance so there is no reason to start an investigation.

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