Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to reject her blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to reject her blue badge application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X made an application for a blue badge. In her application, Mrs X highlighted her medical conditions and how her conditions caused her pain, which in turn affected her ability to walk.
7. Department of Transport has issued guidance setting out the eligibility criteria for a blue badge. It states that to qualify under the criteria of being unable to walk, an applicant must have an enduring and substantial disability which means they have, during the course of a journey, very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress.
8. The guidance highlights some of the factors to be considered when deciding whether someone has very considerable difficulty whilst walking, including:
• The level of pain experienced when the individual is walking or a consequence of walking. Consideration should be given to the applicant’s reported experience of pain alongside information they provide regarding any medication or coping strategies adopted to manage their pain.
• The degree of breathlessness when walking, or a result of walking.
• Distance, speed, and length of time an individual can walk for.
• The way the individual walks and their use of walking aids.
9. Applicants need to show that they cannot walk very far without experiencing severe difficulty and that their inability to walk is affected to the extent they would be unable to access goods and services unless allowed to park close to shops, public buildings, and other facilities. Applicants who can walk more than 80 metres, and do not demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking through other factors, would not be eligible.
10. The Council completed a face-to-face assessment for Mrs X. During the assessment, the assessor noted Mrs X was observed to mobilise at a steady pace completing 320 metres without any signs of breathlessness. Also observed not to have any outward signs of pain nor any obvious indication of pain observed. Therefore, the Council concluded Mrs X did not meet the eligibility criteria as she could walk more than 80 metres and did not demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking through other factors.
11. The evidence shows the Council has properly considered all the evidence Mrs X provided to support her application, including that her mobility varies depending on her pain levels on the day. The Council also appropriately completed a face-to-face assessment to observe Mrs X when she is walking to consider any difficulties she might have whilst walking. The Council has outlined its reasons for why Mrs X has not met the eligibility criteria and its decision and rationale is in line with DfT guidance.
12. As the Council has properly considered Mrs X’s application, it is entitled make its decision and we cannot find fault with the decision itself. Therefore, an investigation is not proportionate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman