Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint about the way the Council decided her application for a Blue Badge (BB). This is because there is not enough evidence of fault having caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs C complained about the way the Council determined her application for a Blue Badge (BB) and the time it took to consider her application. Mrs C says the Council:

• failed to consider her application under hidden disabilities and only considered physical disabilities;
• failed to process her application a within 12 weeks which increased her anxiety and depression.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation Mrs C and the Council provided. I sent Mrs C a copy of my draft decision and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs C complained about the Council’s actions when she applied for a Blue Badge. Mrs C says the Council only considered her physical disabilities not her mental health which is a hidden disability.
5. The Blue Badge scheme was introduced by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
6. The Department for Transport issued revised guidance In August 2019 to councils when providing Blue Badges to disabled people with severe mobility problems. The guidance provides a structured functional mobility assessment. The guidance is non-statutory meaning that councils are not legally obliged to adopt it. In practice, however, most councils do follow it.
7. The 2019 guidance replaces the previous guidance issued in 2014.  The main change was the introduction of assessment criteria to help people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
8. The guidance sets out several factors that are relevant in deciding whether an applicant meets the criteria for a badge:

excessive pain;

breathlessness;

distance;

speed;

length of time they are able to walk for;

manner in which they walk;

use of walking aids;

outdoor walking ability;

psychological distress;

danger to applicant’s life/serious deterioration in their health;

risk of serious harm to self/others

9. The Council says Mrs C applied for a BB in January. Mrs C declined an assessment in August and submitted further evidence to support her application in September. The Council wrote to Mrs C in September advising that it had declined her application for a BB. It said Mrs C applied under the criteria that her physical mobility was considerably impaired. It said it invited Mrs C to attend for an independent assessment, but she declined stating she was applying under the ‘hidden’ criteria.
10. The Council says it reconsidered her application under the new criteria and considered whether Mrs C experienced very considerable psychological distress when out and about; or is at risk of serious harm when walking; or posed when walking a risk of serious harm to any other person. It said there was insufficient evidence to issue a BB.
11. Mrs C appealed the Council’s decision in October and the Council reviewed the decision in December. It said it considered Mrs C’s additional information, an application for an injury benefit award form, but said the difficulties she described did not appear to be directly related to her walking between the vehicle and her destination, therefore there was no obvious and clear benefit to her being closer to her car.
12. Mrs C appealed the decision to a senior panel. There was some delay when Mrs C came to the Ombudsman because she had not received a response to her request. The Council considered her appeal and explained in March 2021 that she did not meet the criteria under hidden disabilities for a BB.
13. The Council explained it considered all paperwork in Mrs C’s case, including all her emails, her application form and further evidence and discussed the case at the panel review meeting. It acknowledged Mrs C’s health problems in terms of her heart condition, arthritis, anxiety and depression but determined the impact on her ability to walk or travel did not meet the threshold for a BB.
14. The Council explained the panel considered whether Mrs C’s levels of anxiety and depression were such that it met the criteria around ‘very considerable psychological distress, experiencing overwhelming anxiety, or posed a risk to herself or others’. It considered a report from the Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) services who were supporting Mrs C with her levels of anxiety and depression but concluded the level of support Mrs C required and the impact of her condition did not meet the tests set out in the Department for Transport guidance.
15. Although Mrs C disagrees, the Council has considered her physical and hidden disabilities and explained the reasons why she did not meet the criteria for a BB. We could not say this is fault.
16. Mrs C is unhappy with the delay in the Council considering her BB application. Mrs B has not been caused a significant injustice because of the time it has taken the Council to decide her application because she does not meet the criteria for a BB. We will not investigate this point.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault having caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman