The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge. Ms X wants the Council to renew her badge.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the application, medical evidence and Council assessment. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
People may 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 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 guidance says that people who walk slowly will not be eligible if that is the only qualifying factor.
Ms X applied for a Blue Badge and submitted some supporting evidence. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor considered Ms X’s medical history, medication and falls. The assessor watched Ms X walk 85 metres at a slow pace using a walking aid. The assessor noted that Ms X walked with an upright posture, a normal stride and satisfactory balance and coordination. The assessor found that walking caused some discomfort but no breathing problems. The Council decided not to issue a badge because, while it accepts Ms X has some mobility problems, they are not enough to qualify for a badge. The Council will, however, accept a new application from Ms X now; people usually have to wait six months before reapplying.
Ms X disagrees with the decision. She says she keeps falling and wants a badge so she can keep her independence.
I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. 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 and it is not my role to decide if Ms X is eligible for a badge.
The Council considered the information Ms X provided and the findings of the mobility assessor. The assessment notes show the assessor considered pain, distance, balance, breathlessness, walking aids and falls. The notes show there was a proper consideration of each point. In addition, the decision to refuse a badge is consistent with the guidance because Ms X walked more than 80 metres and speed is not a qualifying factor when considered in isolation.
In her complaint to us Ms X stressed the difficulties she has with walking due to falling. This was not stressed so much in the application to the Council. Ms X could submit a new application to the Council, as invited, and explain in more detail the difficulties she has with falls and their impact.
I appreciate Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision but as I have not seen any fault in the way the Council reached the decision there is no reason to start an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman