Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about 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 Mrs X, complains the Council refused to renew her Blue Badge. She also complains the Council confused her application with her daughter’s application. Mrs X wants the Council to award a 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 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 Mrs X and the Council. This includes the application, mobility assessments, photographs and information about the data breach. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mrs 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 people who walk slowly will not be eligible if that is the only qualifying factor.
7. Mrs X, and her daughter (Ms T) live at the same address and both applied for a Blue Badge. The Council considered Mrs X’s application and did a mobility assessment. The assessor considered Mrs X’s medical issues and evidence, her medication and her descriptions of her pain and mobility issues. The assessor watched Mrs X walk 200 metres at a slow speed. The walk included a flight of stairs. The assessor observed some slight signs of discomfort and noted Mrs X walked with a slight limp but at a constant pace and without using a walking aid. The Council agrees Mrs X has some mobility problems but decided she does not meet the threshold to qualify for a badge.
8. Mrs X appealed. Ms T also appealed about her unsuccessful application. The Council made an error and thought there was one application from one person; it sent the information for Mrs X and Ms T to the appeal assessor for Mrs X’s appeal. Once this error was discovered the Council offered Mrs X and Ms T a new mobility assessment as part of the appeal.
9. The findings of the second mobility assessment were similar to the first although Mrs X walked 220 metres during the second assessment. The Council then carried out a desk based appeal assessment and reconsidered all the evidence. The Council confirmed its decision not to issue a badge.
10. 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 and cannot decide if Mrs X is eligible for a badge.
11. The Council considered the information Mrs 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 and there was a detailed review at the appeal stage. The decision to refuse a badge is consistent with the guidance because Mrs X walked further than 80 metres and speed is not a qualifying factor when considered in isolation. I have not seen any suggestion of fault in the way the Council considered the application. Mrs X says her badge should be renewed because her condition has not improved. But, there is no guarantee a badge will be renewed and each application is assessed on its own merits. On this occasion the Council decided Mrs X does not qualify and we have no power to change that decision.
12. 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 Mrs X remains dissatisfied with the way the Council responded to the data breach 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.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mrs X can appeal to the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman