Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council did not renew her Blue Badge which she had had for nine years. She disagrees with the way the Council carried out the mobility assessment and says the assessment should be based on real life.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This includes the application, assessments, medical evidence and decisions. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Mrs X applied to renew her badge. She submitted medical evidence in support of the application. The Council did two mobility assessments with two different assessors. The findings of both assessments are similar. In both cases the assessor noted that Mrs X walked more than 80 metres at a slow speed with a limp or slouch. It was noted she did not stop, show significant pain or use a walking aid. The assessors considered the medication Mrs X takes and that she has not fallen. Both assessors noted they observed Mrs X walking indoors and outdoors. The Council accepted Mrs X has some health issues but decided she does not qualify for a badge.
7. 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 was fault in the way the Council 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.
8. The Council considered the information Mrs X provided and the findings of the 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 Mrs X walked more than 80 metres and speed is not a qualifying factor when considered in isolation.
9. Mrs X complained the assessment was completed indoors. There is no requirement for the test to be completed outside although the guidance says councils must consider how someone walks on outdoor surfaces. In both assessments the notes say there was an element of outdoor walking, including observations when Mrs X was walking back to her car.
10. I appreciate Mrs X disagrees with the decision and says the loss of the badge has left her housebound. However, each application is considered afresh and there is no guarantee a previous award will lead to a renewal. In addition, I have not identified any fault in the way the Council made the decision so there is no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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