Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council assessed the complainant’s Blue Badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the way the Council assessed his application for a Blue Badge. He complains the Council has not processed his application on the basis he has a hidden disability.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes Mr X’s application, medical evidence and correspondence between the Council and Mr X. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

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. People may qualify if they have a hidden disability (for example, dementia or autism) and they experience significant psychological distress when walking.
6. Government 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.
7. Mr X applied for a badge. On his application form he explained he has spinal problems and is in acute pain all the time. He described the distance he can walk, that he is waiting for physiotherapy, and he provided a report from his consultant.
8. The Council did a telephone mobility assessment and decided Mr X had not demonstrated he qualifies for a badge.
9. Mr X disagreed with the decision and submitted many emails and complaints. These include dissatisfaction with the decision letters and he says the Council has not followed the guidance. One of his key points is that the Council should assess his application on the basis of chronic pain which Mr X says is a hidden disability. Mr X denies he has a physical problem.
10. In response the Council offered to review the application. It also offered to do a face-to-face mobility assessment and invited Mr X to submit further medical evidence so it could do an assessment under the hidden disability rules. It provided information about the hidden disability rules and explained the type of evidence Mr X would need to submit.
11. Mr X did not agree to the Council doing a review and he did not accept an in-person mobility assessment. He has not submitted further information so the Council could do a hidden disability assessment.
12. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council assessed the application correctly for someone applying due to spinal problems. A mobility assessment conducted by phone may be inadequate but the Council addressed this by offering a face-to-face assessment and a review. It also offered to assess the application under the hidden disability rules. The Council has not been able to consider the application further because Mr X has not agreed. If Mr X had agreed to any of these suggestions the Council would have had another opportunity to consider whether he qualifies and whether his pain means he qualifies under the hidden disability rules.
13. Mr X says the Council did not follow the correct process and did not follow the guidance. He complains, for example, about the decision letters and says they do not contain enough information. However, while the Council could have included more targeted information this does not, in isolation, require an investigation, especially as Mr X may have received a more detailed response if he had agreed to a review. In addition, the Council provided detailed information in its complaint replies.
14. Mr X says he provided a high quality medical report which the Council ignored. But, the report did not address the qualifying factors for a badge. Mr X also says the Council ignored his pain but this was considered as part of the telephone assessment and would have been considered further if Mr X had agreed to a review. He also says the Council should not consider pain as a physical issue but the guidance says councils should consider pain as part of the assessment of physical walking problems.
15. Mr X has made many complaints but I have not seen anything which suggests we need to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman