London Borough of Brent (18 018 182)

Category : Adult care services > Transport

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 07 May 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs B complains that the Council refused her application for a disabled parking badge. The Council was at fault. It failed to fully show how it made its decision, to show that it had properly considered Mrs B’s medical evidence, and to explain its refusal reasons in its decision letter. The Council was also at fault for taking six months to respond to Mrs B’s review request. It has apologised for the delay, and it agreed to reconsider her application.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs B, complains that the Council refused to issue her with a disabled parking badge. She says her health has worsened over the past year and the Council did not take her medical needs into account.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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

  1. I considered information from Mrs B and the Council. I wrote to Mrs B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

  1. The Regulations set out which people are entitled to disabled parking badges. Some of these people are automatically eligible.
  2. Others are eligible subject to further assessment. These are people who:
    • have a severe disability in both upper limbs and cannot turn (by hand) the steering wheel of a motor vehicle even if that wheel is fitted with a turning knob; or
    • have a permanent and substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
  3. Following amendments to the Regulations in 2011, a person’s eligibility should be confirmed by an independent mobility assessor, unless a council is satisfied that a permanent and substantial disability is self-evident.

The Blue Badge Scheme Local Authority Guidance (2014)

  1. This guidance set outs ‘best-practice’ guidance for assessing applicants’ mobility.
  2. The guidance sets out several areas which may be relevant in deciding whether an applicant is eligible for a badge. These include excessive pain, breathlessness, distance, and speed. It says, “each application should be considered on its merits – not on a ‘one size fits all’ basis”.
  3. The guidance suggests how to assess an applicant’s walking speed. It says:

Brisk pace is equal to at least 90 metres a minute … Normal pace is equal to 61-90 metres a minute … Slow pace is 40-60 metres a minute, and …Very slow pace is less than 40 metres per minute.

  1. The guidance says that, if an applicant cannot walk 40 metres in a minute, or can only walk for less than a minute, then walking is likely to be very difficult for them.
  2. The guidance says that every applicant who is refused a badge should be given a detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal. It says, “it is not sufficient to simply state that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria”.

What happened

  1. Mrs B applied for a parking badge on 20 April 2018. On 27 April she also provided a letter of support from her GP. The letter said she has atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and arthralgia of multiple joints. It said she can only walk 10 to 15 yards without severe breathlessness.
  2. The Council arranged a face-to-face mobility assessment for 27 June 2018.

The mobility assessment

  1. The Council’s assessment form sets out several categories under which each applicant’s walking ability is assessed. It uses a ‘scoring system’ to decide eligibility. It says it uses this system to ensure consistency for applicants.
  2. The scoring system is not explained on the form (and was not explained in the Council’s decision letter either). However, each question has four possible answers, on a scale from from no difficulty to severe difficulty. It appears that the answers are scored from 0 to 3, depending on the assessed level of difficulty within each category.
  3. For an applicant to qualify for a badge, they must score 24 or higher, out of a possible 45 points. An applicant who scored 45 points would display a severe difficulty in every category.
  4. The Council’s assessment form says Mrs B displayed no difficulty in her gait. She also reported that she experienced no pain during the walk.
  5. The form says Mrs B displayed ‘slight’ difficulty with her balance, but does not explain what that means. The form also says she displayed slight difficulty with standing from a seated position, and has arthritis in her knee.
  6. The form says Mrs B displayed ‘moderate’ difficulty with walking speed, and walked slowly, although there is no detail about the speed she walked. It says she walked between 41 and 80 metres, but does not say exactly how far she walked.
  7. The form says Mrs B had moderate difficulty with breathlessness, and stopped twice for 30-60 seconds. It does not make clear whether this was the total time she stopped for, or the period of each stop. It also does not make clear whether the rest periods were included when working out her walking speed.
  8. The form says Mrs B walked with the use of a walking stick.
  9. The form says Mrs B’s mobility difficulties amounted to a score of 15, and therefore she was not eligible for a disabled parking badge.
  10. The Council wrote to Mrs B on 27 June and said her badge application had been refused. The decision letter did not explain why (other than that she did not meet the eligibility criteria) and did not show a consideration of her medical evidence.

The review

  1. Mrs B wrote to the Council on 13 July 2018 and asked for a review of its eligibility decision. She said she was on new medication for a heart complaint.
  2. The Council did not respond to Mrs B’s review request until 18 January 2019. It says the delay was because the request was put in the wrong folder. It apologised for the delay in the letter.
  3. The Council did not overturn its previous decision and said that, as the mobility assessor had seen that she could walk without great difficulty, she was not eligible for a badge. The Council said it had looked at the medical evidence she had provided, but this did not affect its view of her eligibility.
  4. The Council’s letter also provided a detailed explanation of how it scores applicants.

Analysis

  1. It is not my role to decide if someone is eligible for a disabled parking badge. However, I can look at how a council made a decision.
  2. The categories the Council considers when assessing applicants are broadly similar to the suggested categories in the government guidance. No important feature of mobility (as suggested by the guidance) is absent from the Council’s assessment form.
  3. However, there is a lack of detail about exactly how the Council assessed certain features of Mrs B’s mobility. The form does not say:
    • what speed Mrs B walked, or what ‘slow’ means;
    • whether her rests during the walk were included in the overall speed;
    • what ‘slight difficulty in balance’ means; or
    • exactly how far she walked.
  4. To consider whether the Council’s decision was properly made, I must be able to work out how it was made. In Mrs B’s case, I cannot, with any confidence, do so. This was fault by the Council.
  5. The guidance says decision letters should give detailed reasons why an applicant has been refused a badge, other than that they did not meet the eligibility criteria. The Council failed to do this.
  6. The assessment form and decision letter, while referring to Mrs B providing evidence with her application, do not show a consideration of this medical evidence (which in Mrs B’s case was a GP letter), and do not say why the evidence did not justify issuing a badge.
  7. The review letter referred to Mrs B’s “medical condition”, and said her medical evidence had been looked at, but it did not say anything about her specific conditions or difficulties. I have had sight of decision and review letters sent to a different applicant (in late 2018), and the reference to a medical condition appears to be part of the Council’s letter template.
  8. While it is not fault for the Council to use templates, it must also show that it has considered an applicant’s individual circumstances. In Mrs B’s case, I am not satisfied that it did so.
  9. The Council also took six months to respond to Mrs B’s review request, which represents a significant delay. However, it apologised for the delay in its review decision letter. This remedied Mrs B’s injustice from the delay.
  10. Although the Council failed to explain its scoring system in its decision letter to Mrs B, it did so in its review letter. The decision letter I have seen for a different applicant (as referred to above) also adequately explains the scoring system. As a result, the Council does not need to take any further action on this point.
  11. The Council also, in response to my draft decision, reconsidered Mrs B’s application and decided she is eligible for a disabled parking badge.
  12. As a result, Mrs B has no remaining injustice which requires action by the Council.

Agreed action

  1. The Council, in response to my draft decision, agreed to reconsider Mrs B’s application. It has completed this action and has decided she is eligible for a disabled parking badge.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Council was at fault. It failed to fully show how it made its decision on Mrs B’s disabled parking badge application, to show that it had properly considered her medical evidence, and to explain its refusal reasons in its decision letter. The Council was also at fault for taking six months to respond to Mrs B’s review request. It has apologised for the delay, and it agreed to reconsider her application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings