The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s request for the complainant to have a mobility assessment as part of his application 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, complains the Council asked him to attend a mobility assessment as part of his application for a Blue Badge. He says the Council ignored his evidence and is trying to make the process as hard as possible to deter people from applying. Mr X wants the Council to stop abusing people in public.
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes his Blue Badge application, his medical evidence, and the complaint replies. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
Government guidance says councils should do a mobility assessment unless it is clear the applicant is eligible or ineligible for a Blue Badge. There is no requirement for the assessment to be completed outside but the guidance says the assessor should consider the person’s ability to walk outside. Many councils do outside mobility assessments to get a better understanding of the person’s ability to walk.
Mr X applied for a Blue Badge and submitted some hospital letters. The letters give information about his medical condition but do not address the qualifying criteria for a badge or his mobility. The Council assessed his application and decided there was not enough information to decide if Mr X is eligible for a badge. It invited him to attend a mobility assessment.
Mr X complained. He said the Council was belittling his application and ignoring his evidence. He said the assessments are designed to deter people from applying and should not be done in public.
The Council said it had not ignored his evidence but it does not include enough information about his mobility. It explained mobility assessments are a normal part of the application process and are often done outside by an occupational therapist. The Council offered a home visit as an alternative. It said Mr X needed to have the assessment to complete the application. It invited Mr X to get in touch regarding the assessment. Mr X has not had a mobility assessment so the Council has been unable to make a decision.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. A mobility assessment, whether indoors or outside, is a normal part of the application process and is recommended by the government guidance. There is no suggestion of fault by the Council and it sought to alleviate Mr X’s concerns by offering a home visit. There is no reason to start an investigation and, as mobility assessments are recommended by the guidance, we could not criticise a council for asking Mr X to have an assessment.
Final decision
We will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman