Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate the Council’s decision not to award a Blue Badge for the complainant’s son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to give his two year old son a Blue Badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the information provided by the Council. This includes the mobility assessment report, the Council’s reasoning and medical information submitted by Mr X. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue badge government guidance

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. People can qualify if they experience psychological distress when walking. The guidance says councils should also take into account coping strategies that are in place. For example, if someone would always be accompanied, and this negates the risk, then they would not qualify for a badge. People can qualify if they have physical problems or hidden disabilities.
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.

What happened

7. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge for his son (Y) who is two years year old. He explained his son has autism and some mobility issues. He said that Y is always in his pushchair or has to be carried. He said that Y cannot walk more than 50 feet. He said Y may lash out which can create a hazard. Mr X provided hospital letters which confirmed the diagnosis and supported the application.
8. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor watched Y walk 100 metres with no difficulties from a physical perspective. The assessor noted Mr X’s reports that Y can have meltdowns and can bite and injure himself. The assessor watched a video of Y dropping to the ground while walking. The assessor watched Y walk back to the car while holding his mother’s hand. The assessor saw that Y swung and pulled himself to the ground on two occasions. The assessor noted that Mrs X told Y to stop and he did after a couple of minutes and they continued walking. Y continued to hold her hand and did not try to run off. The assessor did not witness any evidence of psychological distress or risk to Y or anyone else. The assessor noted Y displayed age appropriate behaviour. The Council decided not to issue a badge.
9. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision and says Y displays the behaviours which are qualifying factors for a badge. He says Y drops to the ground and will not respond to verbal requests to get up.

Assessment

10. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council has made a decision. The Ombudsman does not decide if someone is entitled to a badge.
11. The Council considered the information provided by Mr X and the findings of the mobility assessor. The assessor watched Y walk more than 80 metres, with little or no physical difficulty. The assessor also considered the factors relevant to the hidden disability rules. Although Mr X disagrees with the conclusion reached by the Council, it considered all the factors I would expect it to consider when assessing if someone is eligible for a badge. In addition, any two year child will require supervision when outside and may be prone to behaviour which could put them at risk. It is possible Y may qualify for a badge when he is older but that would be for the Council to decide.
12. Mr X sent a hospital letter to the Council after it had issued its final decision. The letter supported the application. The Council has now considered that letter but says, that while the doctor supports the application, it must also consider the findings of its assessor and the government guidance. Taking all the evidence into account, including the recent hospital letter, the Council’s decision remains that Y does not qualify because, at the moment, his need for supervision when out is not that different to any other two year old child.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman