Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge. He wants the Council to issue another 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’s representative and the Council. This includes the application, supporting evidence and 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 experience considerable psychological distress while 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 who receive descriptor E of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) or eight or more PIP points for moving around, automatically qualify for a badge. Descriptor E is for people who cannot undertake a journey due to overwhelming psychological distress.
8. Mr X applied for another Blue Badge. He applied on the basis of his PIP award. The Council rejected the application because Mr X receives descriptor D. Mr X receives no PIP points for walking around; this means the Department for Work and Pensions decided he can walk more than 200 metres.
9. Mr X, via his representative, appealed. He provided more information about his medical conditions and their impact. He said he does not go out alone. Mr X submitted medical and other supporting evidence.
10. The Council assessed the appeal but confirmed Mr X does not qualify for a badge. In reaching the decision the Council noted there is no current medical evidence confirming Mr X cannot walk 80 metres or experiences severe psychological distress when walking.
11. Mr X disagrees with the decision and says the PIP award is wrong. He says he will struggle without a badge.
12. 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. I have no power to award a badge and it is not my role to re-make the decision or decide if Mr X is eligible for a badge.
13. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the decision but I have not seen any fault in the way the Council assessed the application. It correctly decided Mr X does not qualify under PIP and, while Mr X says the PIP award is wrong, the Council can only consider the PIP as it is.
14. The Council considered the new points raised in the appeal and, while it assessed all the issues, it noted there is no current supporting evidence. The Council’s decision flows from the evidence and the Blue Badge rules and I have not seen anything to suggest we need to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. 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