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, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue another Blue Badge. He says a badge is crucial for his independence and to allow him to access local amenities.

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 the Council’s 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 Blue Badge 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 eight or more points with the mobility part of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) automatically qualify for a badge. People who score four points do not qualify; a score of four points means the person has been assessed by the Department for Work and Pensions as being able to walk 50 metres to 200 metres. Mr X has four mobility points.
8. Mr X applied for a badge. He provided supporting medical evidence. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor noted Mr X’s medical conditions, drugs, use of walking aids, medical evidence and treatment. The assessor watched Mr X walk more than 80 metres and noted the speed, manner and expressions of pain. The Council accepted Mr X has mobility problems but not to the extent that he qualifies for a badge. In making this decision the Council was aware of his PIP award. Mr X disagrees with the assessment and the decision.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. We are not an appeal body which means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision.
10. 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 and this was cross-referenced to the medical evidence and guidance. The decision to refuse a badge is consistent with the guidance because Mr X walked more than 80 metres and the Council decided the problems he experienced during the walk were not to the degree that he meets the threshold for a badge.
11. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the decision and has explained the impact of no longer having a badge. But, as I have not seen any fault in the way the Council made the decision there is no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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