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 Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to award a Blue 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 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 Mr X and the Council. This includes the application, medical evidence and correspondence with the MP. 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. 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. Mr X applied for a badge. He has a condition which may mean he needs prompt access to a toilet. The Council considered the application under the physical and hidden disability rules. The Council considered the information from Mr X and the medical evidence. It also considered the guidance which includes advice that prompt access to a toilet is unlikely to be ameliorated by a badge.
9. The Council decided not to award a badge because there was insufficient evidence that Mr X has problems with his mobility that mean he cannot access toilets or the wider community. It noted there is no evidence that Mr X experiences significant psychological distress and he does not receive any treatment for such issues. The Council also found Mr X has strategies in places to help him manage his condition and there is no evidence his mobility is severely restricted.
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 Mr X is eligible for a badge.
11. The Council considered all the evidence and assessed it against the qualifying criteria and the guidance. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the decision but I have not seen anything to suggest fault in the way the Council reached its view.
12. Mr X says the decision is inconsistent because a different council awarded a badge a few years ago when he lived in another area. However, each application is a fresh application and councils are not bound by previous decisions or decisions reached by other councils. Further, even if Mr X still lived in the area where he was awarded a badge, there is no guarantee that council would have re-awarded a badge.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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