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 about the Council’s decision not to award a 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 application form, supporting evidence and the mobility 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. The guidance says that people who walk slowly will not be eligible if that is the only qualifying factor.
7. Mr X applied for a badge and submitted some supporting evidence. The Council did a mobility assessment and asked questions about Mr X’s health, medication, treatment, falls and walking aids. The assessor watched Mr X walk 80 metres and noted he walked at a slow pace, with a few stops and showed signs of discomfort but no breathlessness. The Council confirmed it considered the supporting evidence but explained the combination of all the information did not demonstrate Mr X qualifies for a badge.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. We are not 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 and I cannot 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 80 metres and speed is not a qualifying factor when considered in isolation. In addition, while Mr X submitted supporting evidence, it does not say he can only walk short distances or indicate that he meets the threshold for a badge.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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