The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her application for a blue badge. There was no fault by the Council in the way it made its decision.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of her application for a blue badge.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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) If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I have: considered the complaint and the documents provided by Ms X; discussed the complaint with Ms X; considered the documents the Council has provided; and invited comments on a draft of this statement from Ms X and the Council, for me to consider before making my final decision.
What I found
What happened Ms X has medical conditions which affect her walking ability. She is also autistic. She applied for a blue badge in May 2023.
The Council appears to have been unsure what to do with Ms X’s application, as it was passed between assessors and managers, until it decided to invite her for a mobility assessment. The Council no longer has a copy of Ms X’s application or communications with her (apart from its decision), as under its retention policy it deletes them after 90 days.
At the mobility assessment in August, Ms X said she walked for about five minutes, while she looked for the entrance to the assessment centre. She reported constant pain (5-6 on a scale of 1-10) which increased to 6 when she walked, but reduced to 5-6 after walking. She told the Council the pain was sometimes worse and more debilitating, so she could not go to work. Ms X walked 80 meters in 71 seconds, a normal walking pace (61-90 meters a minute) and without a walking aid. The Council noted there were no obvious signs of increased pain, or of her pain affecting her gait. Ms X said she experienced sensory overload in crowded/busy situations and became anxious. The Council noted she was anxious about the assessment.
The Council decided Ms X did not qualify for a blue badge as she: “ walked at a normal pace and there were no obvious signs of increased pain, or her gait being affected by her pain. She scored only a slight raise in reported pain when walking. Her autism can contribute to her anxiety and the pain experience, but this is not severe enough to approve a Blue Badge.”
The Council wrote to Ms X in September turning down her application. It said the Department for Transport’s (DfT’s) Blue badge scheme local authority guidance (England) said, “the local authority’s decision should be based on whether the applicant is unable or has very considerable difficulty in walking, not on the presence or absence of any particular diagnosis or condition”. It said, “as the danger to your health is not a direct result of the effort required to walk you are not considered eligible for a blue badge”.
Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?
Along with most other local authorities, the Council follows the DfT’s Blue badge scheme local authority guidance (England). The guidance says: “the applicant may be deemed eligible if they can walk 30-80 metres (33-87.5 yards) without pain or breathlessness, but demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking through a combination of other factors – for example slow pace and/or their manner of walking”.
“if an applicant can walk 40 metres (44 yards) in a minute (a pace of 0.67 metres/second) including any stops to rest, then the speed at which they can walk is not likely to make walking very difficult when considered in isolation. The applicant may still be considered eligible if they demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking through any other factors.”
“The length of time that an applicant is able to walk for. For example, if an applicant is only able to walk for less than one minute in total then walking is likely to be very difficult for them”.
“The manner in which the applicant walks. The applicant’s posture, rhythm, coordination, balance, and stride should be considered in terms of the degrees of effect they have on their ability to walk”.
“An applicant’s use of walking aids: the fact that a walking aid is or is not used may be relevant to the eventual decision, but this alone should not determine whether or not a Blue Badge is issued”.
“Whether the applicant has very considerable psychological distress whilst walking during the course of a journey”.
The evidence does not support the claim that there was fault by the Council over the way it made its decision. This is because it was in line with the DfT’s guidance. The assessment took account of all the factors, including Ms X’s hidden disability and the variability of her condition. There is no doubt that Ms X’s conditions make walking difficult for her, but the Council was entitled to decide that these difficulties were not significant enough to qualify for a blue badge. Within that context, I cannot criticise its decision.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation on the basis there was no fault by the Council affecting its decision.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman