Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge and a data breach. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could complain to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council refused her application for a Blue Badge and Freedom Pass. She also complains the Council confused her application with her mother’s application. Ms X wants an apology and corrected decision.

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the application, mobility assessments and information about the data breach. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms 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 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.
7. People may qualify for a Disabled Persons Freedom Pass if they have a disability which has a substantial impact on their ability to walk.
8. Ms X applied for a badge and a Freedom Pass. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor noted Ms X’s medical issues, why she thinks she needs a badge and pass, her medical evidence and medication. The assessor noted Ms X had not had any falls and does not use walking aids. The assessor watched Ms X walk 292 metres at a slow speed. The assessor saw Ms X walk with a normal gait, with mild shortness of breath and saw no signs of significant pain.
9. The Council accepted Ms X has a long-term condition which may deteriorate but decided at the moment she does not qualify for a badge or pass.
10. Ms X appealed and provided more evidence. In the meantime Ms X’s mother had applied for a badge and the Council amalgamated the evidence as it did not realise there were two applicants at the same address. As a remedy the Council offered Ms X another mobility assessment so it could be sure its decision about her application was correct.
11. The Council considered Ms X’s appeal and did another assessment. The assessor considered Ms X’s new information and watched her walk 350 metres, again at a slow speed. The assessor noted a slight limp and that Ms X leans slightly to the left when walking. The assessor also noted good balance, rhythm and coordination combined with moderate signs of pain and mild shortness of breath. As with the first assessment, the assessor found Ms X has some difficulties with walking but does not qualify for a badge or pass.
12. Ms X disagrees with the decision and complains of the confusion over the data. She also says an officer was borderline racist. Ms X says the administration of her application was poor which means she has no trust in the decision.
13. 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 made a decision. We cannot issue a badge or pass and cannot decide if Ms X is eligible for either.
14. The Council considered the information Ms X provided on her application form and the findings of two 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 Ms X walked significantly further than 80 metres and speed is not a qualifying factor when considered in isolation. Ms X disagrees with the findings of the assessors but I have not seen any suggestion of fault in the way the Council considered the application.
15. There was an error because the Council failed to realise two people had submitted applications from the same address. But, the Council dealt with this appropriately by offering a second mobility assessment. If Ms X remains dissatisfied she can complain to the ICO. It is reasonable to expect her to do this because the ICO is the appropriate body to consider complaints about data protection.
16. The Council’s administration of the application, as opposed to the process to assess the application from a medical and mobility perspective, could have been better. But these failings do not cast doubt on the outcome of the application and an investigation would not lead to another mobility assessment or a badge. And the errors do not amount to fault requiring an investigation.
17. Ms X has referred to racism. The Council has not received a complaint about this. If Ms X provides the Council with more information about how an officer was “borderline racist” the Council will consider it. We can only consider complaints that have had an appeal response or have completed the Council’s complaints procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Ms X could complain to the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman