The Ombudsman's final decision
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
The complainant, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to award a Blue Badge.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the application, medical evidence and the Council’s decision. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
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. These problems can include physical problems with mobility and considerable anxiety when walking caused by a hidden disability. There are different assessment rules for walking and hidden disability applications.
The Blue Badge 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.
Mr X applied for a badge under the walking and hidden disability rules. He provided supporting medical evidence. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor noted Mr X’s medical conditions, drugs, medical evidence and treatment. The assessor watched Mr X walk more than 80 metres and noted the speed, manner, gait and expressions of pain. The Council accepted Mr X has mobility problems but not to the extent that he qualifies for a badge.
The Council did an assessment under the hidden disability rules but found insufficient evidence that Mr X experiences very considerable anxiety when walking or is at serious risk of harm. The Council considered issues Mr X faces in relation to toilet needs.
I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. We are not an appeal body which means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed the processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision.
The Council considered the information Mr X provided and the findings of the assessors. The assessment notes show the assessor considered pain, distance, balance, breathlessness and toilet needs. The notes show there was a proper consideration of each point and this was cross-referenced to the medical evidence and guidance. The decision to refuse a badge is consistent with the guidance because Mr X walked more than 80 metres and the Council decided the problems he experiences are not to the degree that he meets the threshold for a badge under either criteria.
I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the decision and has explained the impact of not having a badge. But, as I have not seen any fault in the way the Council made the decision, there is no reason to start an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman