Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful 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 Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to award a Blue Badge. He says the Council ignored his medical reports and over-ruled his consultants.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (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 the Blue Badge application, Mr X’s medical evidence and the Council’s decision letters. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to 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 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. The guidance says councils can consider evidence from the applicant’s doctor but this should not be the only source of evidence. In most cases councils will do a mobility assessment to determine eligibility.
8. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge. He has pain and numbness following a car accident. In addition to his application, he submitted a patient summary from his GP, a report written by a doctor for an insurance claim, hospital letters and a MRI report. He said he has pain on walking and has injections for the pain. He reported having regular physiotherapy.
9. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor watched Mr X walk 80 metres. The assessor noted that Mr X walked at a moderate speed and with a moderate stride, showed slight signs of pain and walked with normal balance, posture, and coordination. Mr X did not display shortness of breath and did not use any walking aids. He reported the medication he takes for pain and that he fell 18 months ago. Mr X said his doctor had told him he could walk, swim and cycle. Mr X reported that walking helps to ease the pain. The Council decided Mr X does not qualify for a badge.
10. Mr X says the Council ignored his medical evidence and the opinion of his doctors. Mr X has a medical appointment in August and says he may then submit new evidence to the Council.
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. We have no power to award a badge or to decide if someone is eligible for a badge. We can only consider if a council followed the correct process in making its decision.
12. The Council considered the information Mr X provided and the findings of the mobility assessor. The assessment notes show the assessor considered pain, distance, balance, breathlessness and walking aids. The decision to refuse a badge is consistent with the guidance because Mr X walked 80 metres and speed is not a qualifying factor when considered in isolation. In addition, Mr X explained he has been told he can exercise and none of the medical evidence he provided says he cannot walk 80 metres.
13. Mr X denies providing inconsistent evidence about his physiotherapy appointments; but, all the Council did was note that he had reported attending physiotherapy every two weeks but one of his medical reports said that physiotherapy should stop.
14. The Council’s decision flows from the evidence and the guidance so there is no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. 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