The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew the complainant’s Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to renew her Blue Badge. She says the Council has discriminated against her.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This includes Mrs X’s Blue Badge application, the mobility assessment report and the decision letter. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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.
The government 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.
The rules and guidance are set by central government. The rules do not say that needing to fully open a car door is a qualifying factor for a badge. Councils must implement the rules set by government.
Mrs X applied to renew her badge. The badge was issued before she had leg surgery. Mrs X’s walking and pain have improved since the surgery but she explained on the application form that she has restricted knee bend and has to fully open car doors to get in and out. She said she needs to use disabled parking spaces so she can do this.
The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor considered Mrs X’s medical history, surgery and her restricted knee bend. She noted that Mrs X does not take any medication, does not use any walking aids and has not fallen. The assessor watched Mrs X walk 200 metres with no rests and at a normal to slow pace. Mrs X reported no shortness of breath but said her legs can ache in the evening. The assessor accepted Mrs X needs to fully open car doors but found that Mrs X had not demonstrated she has considerable difficulty with walking. The Council decided not to renew the badge and explained that needing space to get in and out of cars is not a qualifying condition for a badge.
I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault by the Council. We do not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council has made a decision. We have no power to award a badge.
The Council considered the information Mrs X provided on her 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 Mrs X walked more than 80 metres and needing a disabled parking space to open a car door is not a qualifying condition for a badge.
I recognise Mrs X has problems getting in and out of cars and a badge helped to alleviate that problem. But, this is not a qualifying condition for a badge and neither we, nor the Council, can change that. If Mrs X thinks it should be a qualifying condition then she could contact her MP and suggest the law needs to be changed.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman