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, Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to award a Blue Badge. She says the Council did not listen to what she said or consider the impact of her health conditions on her mobility.

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 Mrs X and the Council. This includes the application and the medical evidence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. The guidance says 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. Mrs X applied for a badge and submitted medical evidence. The Council did a phone and in-person mobility assessment but decided she does not qualify for a badge. The Council considered Mrs X’s medical conditions, medication, falls, walking aids and reports of pain. The assessor observed Mrs X walking 80 metres and considered her manner of walking, breathing, pain and pace. The Council referred to the medical evidence but noted that while it confirms Mrs X’s medical issues and pain, there is little that comments on the impact on her mobility. The Council decided Mrs X had not met the threshold to qualify for a badge.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. We do not act as an appeal body and I can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council makes a decision. I have no power to award a badge and it is not my role to re-assess the application or decide if Mrs X is eligible for a badge.
9. The Council considered the information Mrs X provided on her application form, the supporting evidence, 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. The decision to refuse a badge is consistent with the guidance because Mrs X walked more than 80 metres. In addition, the Council referred to the medical evidence and correctly noted there is little that addresses Mrs X’s mobility.
10. I appreciate Mrs X does not think the Council listened to her or correctly considered what she said, but the body of evidence indicates the Council considered the application in full and cross-referenced it with the evidence and guidance. There is no suggestion of fault so no reason to start an investigation.
11. Mrs X says she has a new medical condition. If Mrs X thinks the new problem has a negative impact on her mobility she could make a new application to the Council.

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