Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to provide him with a Blue Badge. He says the Council did not properly consider his application and this caused him avoidable distress and inconvenience. We found fault regarding the Council’s communications with Mr X. The Council has agreed to reconsider Mr X’s appeal and provide an apology.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to provide him with a Blue Badge. He says the Council did not properly consider his application and this caused him avoidable distress and inconvenience.
2. Mr X would like the Council to apologise and approve his application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I have made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. Mr X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Blue Badge Scheme

8. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge Scheme is to help disabled people with severe mobility problems access goods and services by allowing them or a carer to park near their destination. The scheme provides parking concessions for Blue Badge holders. Local authorities are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing whether people are eligible for the badge. It is for the Council to decide if an applicant meets the eligibility criteria for a Blue Badge and it may appoint an Expert Assessor to help it decide the application.
9. The DfT issues Guidance to councils for providing Blue Badges to disabled people with severe mobility problems. The guidance says that councils must ensure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation. There are two types of eligibility criteria. One is where a person is eligible without further assessment. The other is where the person is eligible subject to further assessment.
10. Those people who are eligible subject to further assessment must fulfil one of two criteria to qualify for a badge. The person must:

• Drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and cannot operate, or have considerable difficulty in operating, all or some types of parking meter; or
• Have a permanent and substantial disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.

11. From August 2019, people with hidden disabilities such as anxiety disorders can apply for a Blue Badge. The Department of Transport (DfT) issued guidance in August 2019 to councils for assessing and providing Blue Badges. Although not statutory guidance, we expect councils to adhere to the advice it sets out.
12. When making its decision on eligibility, councils should consider any conditions that affect the applicant’s mobility. The guidance says councils should consider the impact of hidden disabilities on an applicant’s ability to walk during their journey to reach their destination.
13. The guidance says, “it is expected that officers will require evidence from health/social care professionals involved in the care of an individual to confirm/validate:

• that the applicant has an enduring and substantial disability, such as that which they describe in their completed application
• whether, when walking as part of a journey, the applicant experiences very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress
• where it may be unsafe for the applicant to walk far as they may pose danger to themselves, or the wellbeing of others.” (paragraph 4.103 of the Guidance)

14. Local authorities may refuse to issue a Blue Badge if the applicant fails to provide adequate evidence of their eligibility. The guidance says councils should provide a clear explanation of the reasons why an application has been refused in the decision letter.

What happened

15. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge in February 2021. In his application, Mr X told the Council he had a hidden disability, namely anxiety caused by a phobia. Mr X described the effect of the phobia on his ability to spend time outdoors, including his ability to walk and the distress this caused. In support of his application, Mr X provided a copy of a prescription showing the medication he was taking.
16. The Council forwarded Mr X’s application to an Occupational Therapist, (OT), for consideration. On 23 March 2021, the OT provided their assessment to the Council. It said they considered Mr X did not meet the DfT eligibility criteria for hidden disabilities.
17. On 14 April 2021, the Council wrote to Mr X. It told Mr X he did not meet the eligibility criteria for a Blue Badge and referred him to the eligibility criteria guidelines on the Government’s website. The Council told Mr X he could appeal the decision and that this would be considered by a senior manager and a senior OT.
18. Mr X appealed on 16 April 2021. He set out the reasons for his appeal and told the Council he felt he qualified for a Blue Badge under several of the eligibility criteria. He told the Council he was unable to walk as part of a journey because of considerable psychological distress caused by his phobia. Mr X said he therefore felt he met the criteria based on his hidden disability.
19. The Council forwarded Mr X’s appeal to an OT for further consideration. The OT acknowledged the information provided by Mr X. However, the OT noted Mr X did not provide medical evidence to support the issues he described in his appeal and had provided no evidence that his disability caused “very considerable psychological distress”.
20. The Council provided its decision to Mr X on 24 May 2021. It said it had consulted with the OT and considered the information on Mr X’s application form. The Council said it was satisfied its refusal of Mr X’s application was correct and in line with the DfT guidance.
21. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought his complaint to us.

Analysis – was there fault causing injustice?

22. My role is to consider how the Council carried out its assessment of Mr X’s application; it is not to decide if Mr X is eligible for a Blue Badge. If I find the Council acted with fault, I must consider the impact that had on Mr X and whether I should recommend a remedy.
23. The Council acted in line with its usual practice by referring Mr X’s application to an OT for advice. It then made its decision to decline the application having received that advice. As previously stated, it is for the Council to decide if an applicant meets the eligibility criteria for a Blue Badge. However, if councils decline an application, the guidance says they should provide a clear explanation of their reasons within the decision letter. This allows applicants to address those reasons when asking the Council to consider a review or appeal.
24. The Council’s decision letter of 14 April 2021 did not provide the reasons why the Council declined Mr X’s application; it only referred Mr X to the eligibility guidelines on the Government’s website.
25. Although the Council’s website says applicants must include medical evidence as part of their appeal, the decision letter of 14 April 2021 did not explain this to Mr X.
26. I acknowledge the appeal decision letter of 24 May 2021 provides an explanation for the Council’s decision. However, this was issued after the appeal process was concluded. By then, Mr X had no further recourse to ask the Council to consider his application further.
27. The lack of explanation in the Council’s decision letter of 14 April 2021 is not in line with the guidance published in 2019. I have found this to be fault. Also, the lack of information in the letter regarding Mr X’s need to provide medical evidence in support of his appeal is fault. This is because the Council declined the application because of a lack of medical evidence but did not tell Mr X he should provide this as part of his appeal.
28. I consider the fault identified caused Mr X avoidable confusion about why his application was declined. I also consider it caused avoidable inconvenience by not telling Mr X of his need to provide medical evidence to support his appeal.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within three months of the final decision:

• Reconsider Mr X’s appeal to allow him the opportunity to provide medical evidence in support of his application, and
• Consider amending the wording of the Council’s initial decision letters, so they provide the same information as the Council’s website about the information required to consider an appeal.

30. The Council has also agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:

• Provide a written apology to Mr X. This should include a timetable for the review of the application and should set out what information Mr X may wish to provide to help the Council with the review, and
• Make a payment of £100 to Mr X in recognition of the inconvenience and confusion caused.

31. The Council is required to provide evidence it has complied with the above recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have found fault with the Council’s actions and the Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy the complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman