Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful Blue Badge application because it is unlikely we 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 award a Blue Badge.

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))
3. We cannot question whether an organisation’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 considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes his application, medical evidence and the mobility assessments. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

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.
7. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge. He said he is finding the walk to the station increasingly hard and it is difficult to use public transport. He would like a badge so he can use a disabled parking bay at work and stay in employment. Mr X has problems with his back and leg which causes pain and numbness.
8. The Council did a phone assessment and two face to face mobility assessments. In each assessment the Council considered Mr X’s medical problems, his reasons for wanting a badge and his medical evidence. The Council was aware the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had not awarded the mobility element of a disability benefit (PIP). The assessors watched Mr X walk and found that he could walk 80 metres without showing he has considerable difficulty walking. They noted he walks at a slow but steady pace, did not rest and does not use any walking aids. They were aware he has not had any falls and has not been prescribed any pain killers although he uses a TENs machine. The Council explained that wanting a badge to stay in employment is not one of the qualifying criteria.
9. 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 and cannot decide if someone is entitled to a badge.
10. 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 badges are not awarded to help people commute to work. The Council’s decision is consistent with the DWP decision not to award the mobility part of PIP.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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