Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. 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 award a Blue Badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the application, mobility assessment and medical evidence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

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.
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.
7. Mr X applied for a badge. He explained his medical conditions, his walking problems and provided a letter from his consultant. The hospital letter confirmed Mr X’s medical problems and said his walking distance is severely restricted.
8. The Council carried out a mobility assessment and decided Mr X does not qualify for a badge. Mr X appealed and disputed some of the findings. The Council did a second assessment. The assessor watched Mr X walk 90 metres with a stop for a few seconds at 50 metres due to pain. The assessor noted that Mr X walks with a slight limp but at a normal pace. The notes show the assessor considered Mr X’s pain, medical history and manner of walking. The Council decided that, while Mr X has some mobility problems, he does not reach the threshold to qualify for a badge.
9. 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 made a decision. We have no power to award a badge and it is not my role to decide if Mr X is eligible for a badge.
10. The Council considered the information Mr X provided 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. In addition, in both assessments Mr X walked further than 80 metres. Mr X stopped briefly but the assessor had to decide if Mr X had shown considerable difficulty in walking and, having considered all the evidence, the Council decided Mr X did not meet that threshold. That is not to say Mr X does not have mobility problems but rather that the Council has decided that those problems are not considerable enough to qualify for a badge. That is a decision it was entitled to make and I have not identified any fault in the way this decision was reached.
11. Mr X has referred to the letter from his consultant. But that was just one part of the evidence the Council had to consider. The government guidance encourages the use of mobility assessments rather than reliance of evidence from applicants’ doctors because the assessments are independent. In addition, while doctors can provide a medical opinion and express support, they may not be aware of the blue badge rules and what represents considerable walking difficulty within those rules.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman