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, Mr X, complains the Council has not renewed his 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 medical evidence and the Council assessment. 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 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. Mr X applied to renew his Blue Badge. On the form he said he could walk more than 100 metres. The Council assessed and refused the application.
8. Mr X appealed and submitted medical evidence. Most of the evidence was from about 2015. There was little current medical evidence. Mr X submitted a physiotherapy report, from 2015, which said he had been discharged, had a full range of movement, and could mobilise independently.
9. The Council invited Mr X to attend a mobility assessment. The independent assessor recommended approval.
10. Three Council officers reviewed the application and decided not to issue a badge. The officers found a discrepancy between the scoring in the mobility assessment and the supplied evidence. The officers noted the lack of current medical evidence and little evidence of current medical treatment. They also noted the information supplied by Mr X when he completed the form.
11. 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 made a decision. It is not my role to remake the decision or decide if Mr X is eligible for a badge.
12. The mobility assessor found Mr X is eligible for a badge and, in most cases, councils follow this recommendation. However, the assessor is not the decision maker. In this case, the Council (the officers) reviewed all the evidence, including the mobility assessment and, for the reasons explained above, decided Mr X does not qualify for a badge.
13. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the decision and says his condition has remained unchanged in the ten years he had a badge; however, while I understand why Mr X disagrees with the decision I can also see that the Council’s decision flows from the evidence and the guidance. I have not seen any fault in the way the Council made the decision so there is no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. 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