Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful blue badge application. 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 renew his blue badge. A different council had awarded the previous 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 the assessments. 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 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. Mr X applied to renew his badge and submitted some medical evidence. The Council assessed the application and considered his medical history, medication, use of walking aids, and falls. The assessor watched Mr X walk over 80 metres and noted his balance, signs of pain, breathing, need to rest, and use of a stick. The assessor did not find that Mr X has significant difficulties with his mobility. On appeal, the assessor made similar findings although Mr X scored two more points; this change, however, was not enough for the Council to alter the decision.
8. 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 the decision. It is not my role to re-make the decision or decide if Mr X is eligible for a badge.
9. The Council considered the information Mr X provided on his application form 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. The decision to refuse a badge is consistent with the guidance because Mr X walked more than 80 metres. The Council considered the medical evidence but, while it confirms Mr X’s health issues, there is little, if anything, which states he is virtually unable to walk.
10. Mr X disagrees with the decision and says his previous badge was issued by a different council. I do not know if a different council would have re-issued a badge, but each application is considered afresh and a previous award is no guarantee that a new one will be issued. Mr X says it was wrong that the same assessor/officer considered his appeal. I have not seen any evidence of this, but I have seen that in both assessments there is no suggestion of fault and no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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