Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her applications for a Blue Badge and Freedom Pass. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council:
1. refused her a Blue Badge and Freedom Pass despite her having chronic mobility issues;
2. failed to address the medical information in her appeal;
3. failed to take into account the fluctuations in her conditions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Miss X and the Council, including the application, mobility assessments and appeal documents. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
6. Applicants would qualify for a Blue Badge if they cannot walk, have very considerable difficulty when walking or present a risk of serious harm to themselves or others when walking. National government provides this guidance to local authorities for determining eligibility. People may receive a Freedom Pass if they have a disability which substantially impacts their ability to walk.
7. Officers considered Miss X’s application and accompanying documents. They invited her to an in-person meeting to assess her mobility. They observed and assessed her mobility and breathing. The officers’ assessments show they took account of Miss X’s medical conditions and the information she provided about them. Using professional judgement, the Council scored Miss X as having moderate difficulty when walking. The score received meant officers determined she did not qualify for both the Freedom Pass or the Blue Badge.
8. Miss X appealed and provided a further medical letter which she considers the Council did not address when refusing her appeal. Officers noted the contents of the letter. They took the view that the letter did not alter their decision that there was insufficient evidence to show she had very considerable difficulty walking or a disability which substantially affects her walking. They concluded Miss X was not eligible for a badge or pass.
9. Miss X considers the Council did not take into account that her mobility fluctuates. Her medical information advises that her pain and mobility change, depending on variables such as the weather and whether she has been previously active. The national government guidance advises local authorities that it could be reasonable to expect an applicant with fluctuating mobility to experience very considerable difficulty when walking more often than not when deciding eligibility for a Blue Badge. Officers noted Miss X’s reported pain and the details of the medications she uses to manage it, including on her worst days. The medical and other information Miss X provided in her application and appeal does not refer to her mobility being worse than at her assessment more often than not.
10. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation. The information shows the Council considered the evidence presented within the application and the appeal to make its decision to refuse the Blue Badge and Freedom Pass, and applied the relevant eligibility criteria. We recognise Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. We understand Miss X’s conditions are degenerative. If she has new information about her conditions which has a bearing on her mobility, she may wish to make further applications for a Blue Badge and Freedom Pass, submitting that evidence for the Council to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman