The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge. He says his condition has got worse and he has struggled since his previous badge expired. Mr X says the Council has ignored factors affecting his mobility. Mr X wants a 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 Mr X and the Council. This includes Mr X’s application, medical evidence and the Council’s decision. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied for a Blue Badge. The Council invited Mr X to an in-person mobility assessment so it could assess how his health conditions affect his mobility. Mr X asked for a Home Visit but the Council explained this was not possible. The Council said it could assess the claim on the paperwork but said that approach would increase the chance of the application being refused.
Mr X explained how his medical conditions affect him and how he has struggled since his previous badge expired. He explained his health has deteriorated and he submitted medical evidence.
The Council assessed the claim on the documents and decided they do not show Mr X qualifies for a badge. The Council accepted Mr X has medical problems but said the evidence does not show he satisfies the qualifying criteria for a badge. The Council said Mr X could reapply in six months.
Mr X disagrees with the decision. He says the loss of the badge has made it harder for him attend medical appointments, social and community events, and taking his children to school.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The guidance says it is for each council to determine how it will assess a claim. Councils often do an in-person mobility assessments to help determine eligibility for a badge. The Blue Badge guidance explains councils must consider the impact of a person’s health on their ability to walk and must consider factors such as distance, pain, balance, falls, breathlessness, and safety. The existence of a medical condition in isolation is not a qualifying factor for a badge. Councils must assess how a medical condition impacts someone’s mobility and an in-person mobility assessment is often used.
In this case the Council decided the written evidence does not show Mr X qualifies for a badge. This was a decision it was entitled to make. The Council acted correctly by inviting Mr X to an in-person assessment. If Mr X had attended an assessment the Council would have had more opportunity to assess his mobility and it might have reached a different decision. The Council also acted correctly by telling Mr X there was more chance of his claim being refused if he did not attend an assessment.
We do not act as an appeal body. We have no power to award a badge and it is not my role to decide if Mr X is eligible for a badge. I can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made the decision and I have not identified any fault.
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