The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge 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 give her a Blue Badge.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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)) We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes her Blue Badge application and medical evidence. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
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.
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.
Ms X applied for a badge. She said she has balance problems caused by ear surgery. She also said she has to be careful on uneven surfaces and said her knees can dislocate on uneven surfaces. She said she can walk for about 40 minutes and she provided details of how far she can walk. She said she may hold onto someone.
Ms X also submitted medical evidence. This confirmed the ear surgery and showed Ms X broke her wrist in 2009 and 2015. The GP said there is nothing in Ms X’s records to show a problem with balance or falls. The records also state that Ms X’s only regular treatment is for her ears. Ms X says she is new to the GP practice and has not been seen in person.
The Council refused the application. It said there is no evidence Ms X has considerable difficulty in walking. From the information Ms X provided about how far she can walk, the Council calculated she can walk 649 metres.
Ms X disagrees with the decision. In addition to the ear problem she says she has balance problems and has broken her wrists. She also says her knees tend to dislocate. Ms X disagrees there is no evidence of these problems.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. 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 cannot decide if someone is entitled to a badge.
The walking distance stated by Ms X is significantly longer than the maximum walking distance of 80 metres. The medical evidence does not state Ms X has any diagnosed conditions relating to her knees and the broken wrists occurred some time ago. There is nothing to suggest Ms X regularly falls and there is nothing stated in the notes about balance problems. Ms X says she is new to the practice but the Council can only assess an application on the information that is provided. There is no suggestion of fault in the way the Council assessed the application and 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