Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered this application for a Blue Badge. For this reason, the Ombudsman has completed his investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, to whom I will refer as Ms F, is represented by her parents, to whom I will refer as Mr and Mrs L.
2. Mr and Mrs L complain the Council has refused to renew Ms F’s Blue Badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Ms F’s Blue Badge application form and supporting evidence, the Council’s refusal letter, and its determination of her appeal.
5. I also sent a draft copy of this decision to both parties for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms F has Down’s Syndrome. She has several physical disabilities, including visual impairment, and also suffers from behavioural problems.
7. Mr and Mrs L submitted an application to renew Ms F’s Blue Badge, on a date which is unrecorded. In the application form, they wrote she received the Higher Rate of the Mobility Component of the Disability Living Allowance (HMRCDLA), and had more than 8 points for the ‘moving around’ activity for the Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
8. On 10 October, Mr and Mrs L sent copies of Ms F’s PIP award paperwork. This showed that Ms F had been awarded 12 points for ‘planning and following a journey’ activity, but 0 for the ‘moving around’ activity.
9. The Council refused the application on 6 November 2018. It said Ms F had not provided evidence of her automatic entitlement to a Blue Badge. The Council said it had considered whether she qualified under the discretionary criteria, but had decided her mobility impairment was insufficient.
10. Mr and Mrs F appealed the Council’s decision. The Council invited Ms F to a mobility assessment on 4 January 2019.
11. The assessor recorded that Ms F walked at a slow pace, looking at the floor. He wrote she needed to focus on her footing, but had no other significant limitation to her walking. She gave signs of some discomfort at first, but no shortage of breath or instability.
12. The assessor scored Ms F 16 points for her mobility. The eligibility score for a Blue Badge was 24 points or more, meaning she did not qualify. The assessor wrote “under current [Blue Badge] criteria, [learning disability and mental health] issues are not considered”.
13. Mr and Mrs L complained to the Ombudsman on 23 January.

Back to top

Legislative background

14. This government guidance document is not statutory, so councils do not have to follow it. However, it provides examples of good practice which councils may choose to consider and apply when assessing Blue Badge applications.
15. Some people are automatically entitled to a Blue Badge (without further assessment). They must be over two years old and fall within one of the following categories:

• receives the Higher Rate of the Mobility Component of the Disability Living Allowance (HRMCDLA); or
• receives eight points or more under the “moving around” activity of the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP); or
• is registered blind (severely sight impaired); or
• receives a War Pensioner’s Mobility Supplement (WPMS); or
• has been awarded both a lump sum benefit at tariffs 1-8 of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and certified as having a permanent and substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.

16. Those who are not automatically entitled may still qualify under discretionary criteria, if they can show their mobility is significantly impaired. Authorities will often invite applicants to a mobility assessment for this purpose.
17. Section 4.4 of the government guidance outlines suggested assessment procedures. It outlines several factors which may be taken into consideration, including:

Distance

• 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 (e.g. extremely slow pace and/or their manner of walking).

Speed

• If an applicant cannot walk 40 metres (44 yards) in a minute (a pace of less than 0.67 metres/second), including any stops to rest, then this is an extremely slow pace which is likely to make walking very difficult when considered in isolation.
• If an applicant can walk 40 metres (44 yards) in less than a minute (a pace of 0.67 metres/second or more), including any stops to rest, then the speed at which they walk is not likely to make walking very difficult when considered in isolation.

Manner

• The applicant's posture, rhythm, coordination, balance and stride should be considered in terms of the degree of effect they have on their ability to walk.

Back to top

Analysis

18. In their initial application, Mr and Mrs L wrote that Ms F automatically qualified for a Blue Badge under the HMRCDLA and PIP criteria.
19. It appears they did not initially supply any evidence to support this. They subsequently sent a copy of Ms F’s PIP award paperwork, but this proves she does not automatically qualify, as she needed 8 points under the ‘moving around’ activity, but had been awarded 0.
20. The Council then invited Ms F for a mobility assessment after her appeal. The assessor acknowledged that Ms F shows some anxiety in walking, but did not display any significant physical impairment. Her score, of 16 points, falls some way short of the eligibility score of 24.
21. The Ombudsman’s role is to review authorities’ adherence to procedure when making decisions. If an authority has followed the correct procedure, taking into account all relevant information, and given clear and coherent reasons for its decision, the Ombudsman cannot generally criticise it. The Ombudsman cannot uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with the professional judgement of an authority or its officers.
22. In this case, I cannot criticise the Council’s decision. The only evidence it appears Mr and Mrs L submitted shows that Ms F did not automatically qualify for a Blue Badge. The Council then undertook as assessment, and I can find no fault in the assessor’s reasons for maintaining the original decision.
23. In 2018, the Department for Transport (DfT) undertook a consultation about changes to the Blue Badge eligibility criteria. This was specifically because of the issue of ‘hidden disabilities’ – those which do not necessarily affect a person’s mobility in itself, but can make it difficult or dangerous for them to walk long distances.
24. It is expected the DfT will amend the guidance, to include additional eligibility criteria, in 2019. However, this guidance is yet to be published.
25. I note, in particular, the assessor’s comment that ‘learning disability and mental health’ do not form part of the current criteria. This may change under the new guidance, meaning Ms F may then become eligible. However, I cannot criticise the Council for failing to apply this guidance before it is published.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman