Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an 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 Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to award a Blue Badge. She says the Council ignored her mental health condition and lied in the report.

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 a council’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 Mrs X and the Council. This includes the applications and assessments. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mrs 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 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 also qualify if they have a hidden disability which causes considerable psychological distress when walking.
8. Mrs X applied for a badge due to physical problems and a hidden disability. The Council assessed both aspects of the application. The Council did a mobility assessment and watched Mrs X walk 85 metres, at a slow speed, but without displaying any significant issues with balance, shortness of breath, pain or manner of walking. The assessor noted Mrs X does not take prescription drugs but was aware Mrs X reported that her doctor was waiting for a diagnosis before prescribing. The Council also noted that Mrs X did not provide any supporting medical evidence for any of her conditions and did not provide evidence of any medical intervention other than physiotherapy and seeing her GP.
9. The Council assessed Mrs X under the hidden disability criteria. The assessor noted Mrs X’s hidden disability, her reports of anxiety and needing to park close to her destination; Mrs X also reported she is always accompanied. The Council accepted Mrs X experiences anxiety but found the threshold to qualify for a badge due to a hidden disability was not met.
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 has made a decision. We have no power to award a badge and it is not my role to decide if Mrs X is eligible for a badge.
11. The Council considered the information Mrs X provided on her application forms and the findings of the mobility assessor. The assessment 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 Mrs X walked more than 80 metres and speed is not a qualifying factor when considered in isolation. The notes also show the Council properly assessed Mrs X’s application under the hidden disability criteria. There is nothing to suggest the Council ignored this part of the application or that the Council lied.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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