Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s refusal of a blue badge. The Council is at fault for not explaining its reasons for refusing in its decision letter. This did not cause an injustice because Mrs X telephone the Council and it explained its reasons. The Council should review its processes to make sure it tells applicants the reasons for refusing a blue badge.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s refusal of a blue badge. She made two applications and says the Council’s approach to assessing the applications was inconsistent. She says a lot of time and effort was wasted and she is upset about the way she was treated. The refusal of the blue badge has caused difficulty for Mrs X accessing medical appointments and local shops.

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. 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)
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 considered the information provided by Mrs X and the Council, and relevant guidance, as set out below.
6. I wrote to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and gave them an opportunity to comment. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The blue badge scheme helps people with severe mobility problems access goods and services by allowing them or a carer to park near their destination. Councils are responsible for the day to day administration of the scheme. This includes assessing whether people are eligible for the badge.
8. The Department for Transport issued non-statutory guidance for the scheme in 2014 which the Council follows.. 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.
9. Those people who may be eligible subject to further assessment have to fulfil one of two criteria to qualify for a badge. The person must either:

• “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”.

10. The Guidance introduced a structured functional mobility assessment. The Guidance sets out several factors that may be relevant in deciding whether an applicant meets the criteria for a badge – these are excessive pain, breathlessness, distance, and speed. It says: “Each application should be considered on its merits – not on a ‘one size fits all’ basis”.
11. The Guidance says that an applicant will need to show that, because of the permanent and substantial disability, they cannot walk very far without experiencing severe difficulty.
12. Applicants who can walk more than 80 metres and do not display very considerable difficulty in walking through any other factors are not eligible.
13. Councils must write to unsuccessful applicants to explain why they decided to refuse their application. The Government strongly recommends councils give a detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal. If applicants are unhappy with the decision they can ask the Council to review it.

What happened

14. Mrs X has a number of health conditions, which she says causes severe back pain that mean she cannot walk for more than a few minutes. She had a blue badge under a previous blue badge scheme that had expired. She applied for a new badge in January 2018, which the Council refused. She was told she could apply again after six months and did so in September 2018.
15. I have considered how the Council assessed the application in September 2018. I have not investigated the earlier applications but have considered whether there were inconsistencies in the Council’s approach between January and September 2018. I have also seen the record of the mobility assessment in February 2018.

September 2018 application

16. In the application Mrs X said she could walk about 20 metres and that she got breathless when walking. She said she used one stick when outdoors but struggled with this because of carpal tunnel problems. She provided a letter from her GP to support her application. The letter said she had ongoing problems with her back, hip and knee problems, could only walk 20 yards, and had problems with balance.
17. The Council carried out a desk-based assessment. It uses a computer programme to determine whether an application should be accepted, refused or a mobility assessment was needed. Based on the information in the application form the system indicated the blue badge should be refused.
18. The Council said the assessor would cross-reference the outcomes with the information provided. Its records show it considered:
• the GP letter;
• Mrs X’s difficulty using a walking aid;
• the pain relief Mrs X used;
• the previous mobility assessment: and
• whether there was evidence the medical conditions substantially affected her walking ability.
19. The Council wrote to Mrs X in October 2018 to tell her the application was not successful. The letter did not set out its reasons for refusing the blue badge or provide any information to show why she had not met the criteria.
20. The Council says Mrs X contacted it and an officer explained why the application had been refused. The officer advised Mrs X to ask for a review of the decision if she was unhappy with it.
21. In late October, Mrs X asked the Council to review its decision because she said the Council had not taken all her disabilities into account. She provided a report from her GP and two letters from hospital consultants in support.
22. A senior physiotherapist considered the application. Their notes show they reviewed the application and the additional medical evidence Mrs X provided for the review. They also considered the mobility assessment from the January 2018 application. They concluded there was insufficient evidence that Mrs X’s ability to walk met the blue badge criteria of “considerable difficulty in walking”.
23. The Council wrote to Mrs X to explain why she was not eligible for a blue badge. It explained:
• the criteria for a blue badge was either that the person cannot walk or had considerable difficulty in walking;
• the medical evidence did not indicate a substantial difficulty in walking:
• considerations such as difficulty in carrying shopping were not relevant; and
• it had carried out an independent mobility assessment in February 2018 but found Mrs X did not meet the criteria.

Inconsistencies – applications in January and September 2018

24. When Mrs X made the blue badge application in January 2018, the Council carried out a mobility assessment. The assessment found she could walk 179 metres with two short breaks. Mrs X disputes this.
25. I have seen the assessment record, which states she walked route J with two short stops (116 metres), route A with no stops (28 metres) and route K, half way without stops (35 metres). The two stops were recorded as less than a minute each.
26. The Council says when Mrs X made the further application in September 2018 she did not include all the medical conditions she set out in the January 2018 application. It says if she had done so, the algorithm may have indicated a mobility assessment was needed.

Complaints handling

27. Mrs X was unhappy with the outcome of the review and made a formal complaint in November 2018.
28. Mrs X complained staff had told her the Independent Mobility Assessor (IMA) would telephone her to discuss the assessment. The Council said this was not part of its normal process. It apologised and has addressed this with staff training. It has also given guidance to relevant staff about communicating clearly on the telephone and checking the applicant’s understanding of what was said.
29. Mrs X also complained that she had to send the GP letter twice because the Council could not initially locate it. The Council apologised and reimbursed her for the postage charges incurred.
30. In its review response the Council said the carpal tunnel condition, which made it difficult for her to use a walking aid, was not a permanent condition as it treatable by surgery. Mrs X said the GP report stated she had already had surgery so this showed the Council had not read the information she sent. The Council did not respond to this point in its complaint response.
31. Also, in the review letter the Council said there was no evidence of physiotherapy or pain management for her bad back. Mrs X said the medical notes showed she had had physiotherapy. The Council did not respond to this point in its complaint response.

My findings

September 2018 application

32. The Council was unable to provide a copy of the desk-based assessment as this is embedded in its computer system. However, I have seen its notes that show its reasons for refusing the blue badge.
33. The Council considered relevant factors and I have found no fault in the way it completed its assessment. Since I have not found fault in the decision-making process, I cannot criticise the decision reached.
34. The Council wrote to Mrs X in October 2018 to tell her it had refused the blue badge. It did not explain its reasons for deciding this. That was fault. It should have provided reasons for refusal. This fault did not cause Mrs X an injustice because she contacted the Council and an officer explained its reasons. It should review its process to ensure in future it tells applicants why a blue badge was refused. Although applicants can ask for a review of the decision they cannot address the specific grounds for refusal if they have not been told what they are.
35. When Mrs X requested a review, a senior physiotherapist reviewed the case and their notes show they properly considered whether the original decision was correct. There is no fault in the way the review was considered.
36. After reviewing the decision, the Council wrote to Mrs X to explain why she was not eligible for a blue badge.

Inconsistencies – applications in January and September 2018

37. The Council has explained why it carried out a mobility assessment in January 2018 but not in September 2018. I have not found fault with the September 2018 assessment but note the Council says it might have carried out a mobility assessment if Mrs X had set out all the medical conditions in the later application that she included on the earlier one.
38. The Council accepted that some of the information given to Mrs X was not clear. It has already apologised to Mrs X and has addressed this by staff training.

Complaints handling

39. In its stage 2 response the Council accepted it had not addressed all Mrs X’s concerns at stage 1. It appears not to have done so at stage 2 either since it did not respond to the points about carpal tunnel and physiotherapy.
40. Having reviewed the records, it is clear the Council was looking for evidence of current or recent physiotherapy. The records show Mrs X did have some physiotherapy in 2016 but stopped this because it wasn’t benefitting her. The carpal tunnel was relevant to whether Mrs X used walking aids.
41. The Council considered, on balance, Mrs X did not meet the criteria for a blue badge and I have not found fault with the way it decided this. However, it should have responded to all parts of the complaint. The failure to do so was fault. This meant Mrs X had to go to the time and trouble of complaining to us. The Council should apologise for this.

Agreed action

42. The Council will, within one month of the date of the final decision, apologise to Mrs X for not responding to all aspects of her complaint.
43. The Council will, within three months of the date of the final decision, review its processes to ensure that it provides reasons for refusing a blue badge.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman