The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused to renew his blue badge, based on an incorrect mobility report. The Council was not at fault. It assessed his eligibility in line with government guidance.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused to renew his blue badge, based on an incorrect mobility assessment report. Mr X said the decision negatively affected his mental health. He wanted the decision to be reversed so he can regain his independence.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended) We cannot question whether an organisation’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) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered the information he provided.
I considered the Council's comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
I considered the Council's policies and relevant law and guidance.
Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered their comments before making the final decision.
What I found
Relevant law and guidance This Council has a white badge scheme, which uses the same eligibility arrangements as the national “blue badge” disabled parking scheme. I will refer to blue badges throughout this decision statement.
Government guidance, which the Council uses to decide whether someone is eligible for a blue badge, says an applicant must have a ‘permanent and substantial disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.’
Some people, who receive certain disability benefits, are automatically entitled to a badge.
If they are not automatically entitled, the council may carry out a mobility assessment with an expert assessor whose role is to determine whether the applicant has an enduring and substantial disability which causes them to: • be unable to walk • experience very considerable difficulty while walking, including very considerable psychological distress or • be at risk of serious harm while walking or pose a risk of serious harm to another person.
Government guidance on blue badges (paragraph 4.46) sets out factors relevant in deciding whether an applicant meets the criteria, including: • the level of pain experienced by an individual when they are walking, or as a consequence of walking • the degree of breathlessness they incur when, or as a result of, walking • the distance over which an individual is able to walk • the speed at which an individual is able to walk • the manner in which the applicant walks • an applicant’s use of walking aids Applicants who can walk 80 metres or more and do not demonstrate very considerable difficulty walking through any other of the factors in paragraph twelve, would not be eligible (paragraph 4.50).
What happened In 2018 the Council carried out a desk-based blue badge assessment for Mr X. Mr X met the criteria and the Council granted him a blue badge for 3 years.
In 2019 Mr X had a hip replacement and sepsis which doctors said caused muscle loss.
In June 2021 Mr X applied to renew his disabled parking badge and sent supporting medical documents. In July 2021 the Council refused Mr X’s application for a disabled parking badge because it said his mobility impairment was not severe enough to qualify for a disabled badge.
Mr X appealed the decision in mid-August 2021. He said the Council failed to properly consider: his difficultly climbing and alighting a bus and the need for the bus stop to be close to his destination; he cannot use the Underground because of the number of steps involved; he had trouble climbing and descending stairs; and his lost independence without his badge.
In mid-August 2021 the Council sent Mr X’s application to an Occupational Therapist (OT) for reassessment. It told Mr X if the OT was unable to make an instant decision regarding his eligibility he would need a face-face videocall, telephone review or in-person assessment.
In late September 2021 an OT carried out a mobility assessment. The OT noted Mr X: had Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and Osteoarthritis affecting his right knee; had a long term disability affecting his ability to walk a long distance due to a combination of pain and shortness of breath; took paracetamol to control pain; walked for 80 metres outside without stopping, using one walking aid; walked at a slow pace 40-60 metres per minute; appeared mild to moderately short of breath after the 80 metres walk; could walk and talk with the OT and did not need to use his inhaler; reported a stabbing pain every step but showed no facial signs of pain and did not need to stop; walked inside with without a walking aid; reported he ascends/descends internal/external stairs at a slow pace one step at a time; and uses public transport.
In mid-October 2021 Mr X sent the Council a doctor’s letter confirming he had severe Osteoarthritis causing hip pain and COPD.
At the end of October 2021 the Council told Mr X it had decided Mr X did not meet the required points threshold for a disabled parking badge. A score of 10 or above was needed, Mr X scored 7. The Council said the doctor’s letter from mid October 2021 was not new medical evidence that affected its decision and noted Mr X’s condition had not declined between the mobility reassessment in September 2021 and the GP’s letter in October 2021.
Mr X was unhappy with the Council's response and asked it to consider the complaint further at stage 2 of its complaints process. The Council responded to the points he made in December 2021, but concluded its original decision was correct. It said: the GP letter was not new evidence because it did not show Mr X's mobility had deteriorated since the mobility assessment; whether Mr X's muscle loss was 15% or 50% was not relevant as the OT confirmed he could walk the distance required without significant or substantial difficulty; although stumbling on the step was not formally recorded, there were no significant issues with balance; the OT confirmed he could walk to the bus stop without reported difficulty; the OT noted the pain medication used and that it was not used on the day of the assessment. They did not observe signs of pain and Mr X did not need to stop for a rest; the OT noted some shortness of breath, but Mr X was able to walk and talk to the OT at the same time; and a previous assessment in 2018 was desk-based and the blue badge was issued on a temporary basis.
My findings
We are not an appeal body. If there was no fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The blue badge guidance gives councils discretion in conducting assessments and this includes how much weight to give evidence, how to assess symptoms which fluctuate, and how to treat conflicting evidence.
I have not found fault with the Council. I am satisfied it followed the guidance and applied it correctly by arranging for an OT to carry out a mobility assessment, including observing Mr X walking. Mr X could walk 80 metres at a slow pace and the assessor considered all the other factors impacting walking, including pain and breathlessness, as described in paragraph 13. I have checked the OT’s scoring of those factors, which was in line with the guidance. Further, Mr X said in his application that he could walk 150 yards which equates to 137 metres. The guidance says if someone can walk more than 80 metres they are not eligible for a blue badge.
In 2018 the Council awarded Mr X a temporary badge for three years. He said he was not told it was temporary at the time but since blue badges need to be renewed every three years this did not cause him an injustice.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation finding no fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman