Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful 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 Council’s decision that he is does not qualify for a Blue Badge. He says it did not consider his medical evidence and is unhappy he only had a phone assessment. Mr X wanted the Council to do an in-person assessment.

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 the application, medical evidence and a face-to-face assessment which was done after Mr X complained to us. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on 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. The problems can include psychological issues caused by a hidden disability.
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. The guidance says that people who walk slowly will not be eligible if that is the only qualifying factor.
6. Mr X applied for a badge. He has a range of medical issues and submitted medical evidence in support of the application. The Council did a desk-based assessment, and a phone assessment, but decided he does not qualify for a badge.
7. Mr X complained to us. In the meantime the Council did an in-person mobility assessment. The notes show the Council considered Mr X’s medical issues, medication, falls, walking aids, pain and psychological factors. The assessor watched Mr X walk 120 metres at a slow speed. The Council accepted Mr X has some difficulties but decided he does not qualify for a badge.
8. 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.
9. Mr X wanted an in-person assessment. This has now been completed. The Council considered the information Mr X provided on his application form, the medical evidence and the phone and in-person mobility assessments. The notes show the assessor 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 speed is not a qualifying factor when considered in isolation.
10. I appreciate Mr X may be disappointed by the decision, and may think it is wrong, but I have not seen any suggestion of fault in the way the Council made the decision so there is no reason to start an investigation.

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