Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to award 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 application, medical evidence and assessment reports. I also considered our Assessment Code.

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 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. People with a non-physical disability (sometimes called a hidden disability) might qualify for a badge. They must demonstrate the hidden disability causes very considerable psychological distress when walking or poses a risk to themselves or others.
8. Mr X applied for a badge under the walking criteria (not hidden disability). He submitted medical evidence including a letter from his GP supporting the application. Mr X has some physical health issues and a condition which can mean he needs prompt access to a toilet.
9. The Council considered the application under the physical rules although it also considered the access to a toilet which would normally be considered as part of an application under the hidden disability rules. The Council considered all the evidence and carried out a mobility assessment. During the assessment the Council watched Mr X walk 80 metres and considered factors such as distance, pain, breathlessness, walking aids, and falls. The assessment included consideration of all the physical issues Mr X had reported. The Council agreed Mr X has some difficulties but not to the extent that he qualifies for a badge.
10. In making this decision the Council noted Mr X had not supplied any evidence of severe psychological distress due to the toilet issue. The Council also considered the guidance which says that prompt access to a toilet is unlikely to be ameliorated by a badge.
11. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. He says it ignored the guidance and the letter from his GP. He says the Council did not consider the potential risks posed by one of his conditions and failed to assess his hidden disability.
12. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we 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 the decision. It is not my role to decide if Mr X is eligible for a badge and I have no power to issue a badge.
13. The Council considered all the evidence and assessed it against the qualifying criteria and the guidance. Mr X disagrees with the decision but I have not seen anything to suggest fault in the way the Council reached its view.
14. Mr X did not apply under the hidden disability rules but the Council did consider the toilet issue. But, again, its decision about this flows the available evidence and guidance.
15. Mr X complains the Council ignored the letter from his GP. But, the guidance says councils should prioritise evidence from professionals other than GPs and the guidance says GPs cannot be used in the role of an expert assessor.
16. Mr X has highlighted various aspects of the guidance which he says the Council ignored. I have considered all the guidance, included the specific points raised by Mr X, and I see nothing to suggest the Council failed to follow the guidance.

Back to top

Final decision

17. 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