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, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision that he is not eligible for 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, medical evidence and assessments. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. People might 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 and explained how his mobility is affected, especially in relation to hills and work. He said a badge would help him remain in work.
8. The Council considered the application, supporting medical evidence and carried out an in-person assessment. The assessor watched Mr X walk 80 metres and considered issues such as pain, speed, gait, falls, and use of walking aids. The Council decided Mr X is not eligible for a badge. Mr X appealed and the Council did a telephone assessment. The Council again decided Mr X had not demonstrated eligibility for a badge.
9. Mr X disagrees with the decision. He says the Council has not considered his ‘real-world’ need for a badge and complains he scored fewer points on appeal after a phone assessment.
10. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. We are not an appeal body and can only consider if there is fault in the way a council makes a decision. I have no power to award a badge and it is not my role to re-make the decision or decide if Mr X is eligible for a badge.
11. The Council considered the information Mr X provided and the findings of the mobility assessors. The assessment notes show the assessors considered pain, distance, balance, breathlessness and walking aids. The notes show there was a proper consideration of each point, including Mr X’s comments about hills and work, and an assessment of those points in relation to the Blue Badge rules. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the decision but I have not seen any fault in the way the Council decided Mr X is ineligible.
12. Mr X is correct to say he scored fewer points after he appealed. But, there is no requirement that an appeal must maintain the original score and, in any case, the initial score was not sufficient for a badge. Mr X expressed dissatisfaction that the Council only considered if he could walk 80 metres but that is the assessment process set out in the rules.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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