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 Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge.

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 Mr X and the Council. This includes the Blue Badge application and medical evidence, the Council’s assessment and the decision. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. People may 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 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.
7. Veterans who receive the War Pensioner’s Mobility Supplement or have been certified as having a substantial disability which causes considerable difficulty in walking, qualify for a badge.
8. Mr X applied for a badge. He provided proof he receives a war pension and supporting medical evidence. The Council did a mobility assessment. The Council considered Mr X’s medical issues, war pension, part-time employment and adjustments, and his medication. The assessor watched Mr X walk 100 metres with no rests and without using a walking aid. The assessor observed the manner in which Mr X walked and considered pain, balance and breathlessness. The assessor noted that Mr X has not had any falls. The Council decided Mr X does not qualify for a badge.
9. Mr X disagrees with the decision and says the Council ignored that he is a veteran.
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 the information Mr X provided 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. The decision to refuse a badge is consistent with the guidance because Mr X walked more than 80 metres.
12. The eligibility rules for Blue Badges are set nationally by government and not by the Council. The rules say some veterans qualify for a badge depending on the type of war pension they receive. I have not seen anything to suggest Mr X provided the Council with evidence he receives a war pension that passports him to a badge. The Council has to follow the national rules and, as there is no evidence Mr X receives a qualifying war pension, it can only assess the application based on the rules explained above. If Mr X thinks the rules should give greater weight to veterans and military service then he would need to raise this with his MP. It is not something that we or the Council can change.

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