Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her blue badge application. She says the assessor did not properly consider her true situation and her supporting information was dismissed.

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 or continue 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. 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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X applied for a blue badge and in her application, she provided a supporting statement from a nurse and listed her reasons for applying which included breathlessness in walking caused by her medical treatment.
7. Department of Transport guidance sets out what assessors may wish to consider when assessing a person’s mobility. The guidance says councils must make sure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in the legislation. There are two types of eligibility criteria:

• Eligible without further assessment.
• Eligible subject to further assessment

8. For the eligible subject to further assessment criteria to be met, people may be described as:

• a person who drives a vehicle regularly, has a severe disability in both arms and is unable to operate, or has considerable difficulty in operating, all, or some types of parking meter; or
• a person who has been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring and substantial disability which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk, experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress.
• in addition, they may be at risk of serious harm when walking - or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person.

9. Ms X was not eligible without further assessment and so the Council assessed her for the second criteria.
10. The Council completed a face-to-face walking assessment with an occupational therapist. The assessment noted the following:

• Ms X’s reasons for applying and her reported medical conditions including the supported information provided.
• Ms X can walk slowly using a walking stick up to 50-100 meters before stopping to catch her breath.
• Ms X reported some minor chest pain because of her treatment but no pain in her limbs or body that impacted on mobilising. Walked 80 meters without reporting pain.
• Has had no reported falls.

11. Following the face-to-face assessment, the Council decided Ms X was not eligible for a blue badge.
12. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council properly considered all Ms X’s information, completed its assessment appropriately, and made its decision in line with guidance. We cannot find fault with the decision itself if there was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman