Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his blue badge application. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his blue badge application. He complains the assessment was flawed as it failed to consider the full extent of his disability and difficulties.
2. Mr X is represented by Ms Z.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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. In his application, Mr X noted he found it difficult to move out and about and that he could not walk without his walking aid. Further, due to his weight, he always felt in pain and short of breath. The application also noted Mr X could walk 800 metres in four to five minutes.
7. The Council declined Mr X’s application on the basis there was no evidence he was unable to walk, or has very considerable difficulty, walking 80 metres. The Council later completed a face-to-face assessment which also found Mr X was not eligible for a blue badge. Ms Z was present during the face-to-face assessment.
8. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault causing the complainant injustice. This is because we are not satisfied the Council’s face to face assessment was completed properly.
9. The assessor noted in the assessment that the rationale for declining the application was because they had observed Mr X to have walked in and out of the assessment room, and to the side car park. However, there is no detail provided as to where Mr X’s starting point was and what the distance is from the start point to the assessment room.
10. There is also uncertainty as to whether this observation of walking to and from the assessment room was the 80 metres walking assessment or if there was another assessment completed. If there was another walking assessment completed, it would have been good practice for the assessor to record brief notes of what they had observed. Instead, no notes have been provided. This creates uncertainty as to what the assessor’s rationale was for awarding the score they did.
11. Further, the assessor notes Mr X was able to walk with good speed and pace for his age. However, no quantitative evidence is provided to support this observation. ‘Good pace’ is subjective and can differ from person to person. Therefore, it would have been good practice for the assessor to record the actual distance Mr X was observed to have walked and the time taken to walk it.
12. Finally, there is a conflict in evidence regarding what was discussed with the assessor. The assessment noted Mr X’s son advised Mr X could walk 500 metres without rest. However, Ms Z disputes this and says Mr X’s son told the assessor that he did much less than that before needing to sit down and rely on someone to assist him. Given this, in the absence of any further detail to evidence what the assessor observed during the assessment, we cannot be satisfied the assessment was completed properly.
13. The likely fault will have caused uncertainty as to whether the decision to decline the application was correct made. Therefore, we invited the Council to remedy this by completing a new face-to-face assessment. The Council should ensure the assessment accurately records what the assessor observes during the assessment, including any discussions held with Mr X or his representatives, and all the evidence considered and relied on.

Back to top

Agreed decision

14. To its credit, the Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will complete the above within four weeks of the final decision to put things right.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We have upheld this complaint because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman