Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to consider all his medical information before refusing his Blue Badge application. We find fault with the way the Council considered Mr C’s application and the decision letter it issued. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address Mr C’s injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr C complained the Council failed to consider all his medical information before refusing his Blue Badge application. He says it is frustrating and he finds it overwhelming to go out without a Blue Badge.

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’. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered information from Mr C and the Council.
5. Mr C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Blue Badge scheme

6. The Department for Transport (DfT) has issued guidance to councils for providing Blue Badges. The Blue Badge scheme entitles drivers or passengers with mobility problems to park nearer to their destination.
7. The DfT updated its guidance in August 2019 to ensure that difficulties experienced by people with non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities are considered by councils when determining the eligibility for Blue Badges. The revisions to the eligibility criteria mean that councils can now consider a person’s difficulty while walking, and during the course of a journey, rather than solely their ability to walk or difficulties caused only by the physical act of walking.
8. The guidance explains the new expert assessor role (previously carried out by independent mobility assessors) will continue to allow for impartial mobility assessments typically undertaken by occupational therapists and physiotherapists, to help them determine the eligibility of applicants whose difficulty whilst walking relates primarily to physical factors.
9. However, the guidance also states these kinds of mobility assessments may be less appropriate for some people with hidden conditions, who may be able to walk, but who experience, during the course of a journey, other very considerable difficulty. So, the broadened title of ‘expert assessor’ was intended to enable councils to draw upon a wider range of professionals with closer knowledge of the applicant’s case history to certify eligibility when required.
10. Where it is not self-evident that a person meets the criteria on information from the applicant and health or social care practitioners, a referral should be made to an expert assessor for certification (paragraph 4.27).
11. If a council decides not to issue a Blue Badge, the regulations say it must notify the applicant, in writing, of the reasons for refusal. The DfT strongly recommends that every applicant is given a ‘detailed explanation’ of the grounds for refusal. Councils should not simply state in their refusal letter that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria.
12. When reviewing applications, the Ombudsman expects councils to adhere to our guidance, ‘the Principles of Good Administrative Practice’ which says that councils should keep proper and accurate records and give reasons for their decisions. They should have clear and accessible appeal routes and provide timely advice on how and when to appeal or complain.

What happened

13. Mr C applied to the Council for a Blue Badge in January 2021 under the hidden disabilities criteria. Mr C said in his application he becomes anxious when he is in a car park and gets stressed by lots of noise and people. He also said he struggles with walking and breathing because of his weight. He said a Blue Badge would help him access more local shopping facilities and attend hospital appointments with a reduced level of anxiety.
14. The Council reviewed Mr C’s application and completed a desk-based assessment. It noted it did not have enough information to make a decision. It wrote to Mr C in March and asked him for further information about his mobility. It also said it needed recent evidence from mental health practitioners/social care professionals.
15. Mr C provided the Council with further detailed medical information in April. He also said in his application form that walking on level ground makes his condition worse.
16. The Council reviewed Mr C’s further information and completed a second desk-based assessment. The assessor noted a lot of either information either was not given or there was unclear information to assess Mr C against the relevant criteria. The assessor also noted there was no evidence from Mr C’s mental health practitioners that he was at serious risk when mobilising outside or that he experienced considerable distress. Mr C’s treatments and therapies were ongoing, and a carer supported him when he went out.
17. The Council wrote to Mr C and refused his Blue Badge application. It said it did not have enough evidence to prove that his condition impacts him to a level where it would issue a Blue Badge. It also said the risks outlined in his application and the supporting evidence did not evidence he could not access the community.
18. Mr C appealed to the Council. He said he is clinically obese and has severe mental health issues. He asked the Council for a face-to-face assessment. He also provided the Council with a letter of support from his GP.
19. The Council reviewed Mr C’s appeal documents. It noted that while Mr C has ongoing mental health issues, he did not evidence he experiences considerable psychological distress when mobilising. There was also no evidence Mr C was a risk to himself or others when mobilising.
20. The Council wrote to Mr C and said his appeal was unsuccessful for the reasons stated in the initial letter.
21. Mr C referred the matter to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

22. It is not our role to decide whether Mr C should have a Blue Badge; that is the Council’s job. Our role is to assess whether the Council made its decision properly.
23. The Council’s assessment notes show it fully considered the information Mr C provided. However, when it completed the second desk-based assessment, it noted much of the information either was not given, or it was unclear. The Council’s form says if a lot of boxes in this category are ticked, the applicant will need to provide further information.
24. The Council says expert assessors, including a physiotherapist and an occupational therapist reviewed Mr C’s file. However, the guidance states in the case of hidden disabilities, councils may need to draw upon a wider range of professionals with a closer knowledge of the applicant’s case history to certify eligibility. Given that a lot of the information from Mr C was either unclear or not given, the Council should have considered whether it needed to seek advice from an expert assessor that had better expertise of treating someone with Mr C’s complex mental health issues. There is no evidence it did so. This leaves Mr C with uncertainty as he cannot be sure that his application was properly considered.
25. The Council was also at fault for failing to provide Mr C with a detailed decision letter after he had appealed. The DFT recommends applicants are given a detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal. When the Council wrote to Mr C, it said his appeal was unsuccessful and it referred him to the reasons stated in its initial letter. However, Mr C had provided further documents and a letter from his GP. He also further explained why he needed a Blue Badge and asked for a face-to-face assessment. The Council did not address this when it issued its letter. The Council needs to ensure it is following the DFT guidance on issuing detailed refusal letters when assessing future Blue Badge applications.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 11 February 2022 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr C.
• Conduct a fresh assessment of Mr C’s application and consider whether it needs to refer his file to an expert assessor with the appropriate knowledge of his health conditions.
• Issue written reminders to relevant officers to ensure they provide enough detail for applicants to understand why their Blue Badge application was unsuccessful.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have found fault by the Council, which caused Mr C an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman