Summary: Mrs C complains on behalf of her son, Mr B, that the Council did not deal with his application for a blue badge properly. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complains on behalf of her son, Mr B, that the Council failed to deal with his application for a blue badge properly because it did not:
• take into account his disabilities and the impact on his ability to access the community when it completed a mobility assessment.
• consider how proposed changes to eligibility rules would automatically entitle him to a blue badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
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. 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)
5. 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

6. I have spoken to Mrs C about his complaint and considered the information she has provided to the Ombudsman. I have also considered the Council’s response to her complaint and its response to my enquiries.
7. I have written to Mrs C and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Disabled Persons Parking Badge Scheme (known as the “Blue Badge scheme”) was introduced in 1971. The Government later published The Disabled Persons Badges for Motor Vehicles (England) Regulations 2000 (“the Regulations”).
9. The Department for Transport (DfT) has published non-statutory guidance for councils on the Blue Badge Scheme. This is called ‘The Blue Badge Scheme Local Authority Guidance England October 2014’ (“the Guidance”).
10. The Blue Badge Scheme allows people with severe mobility problems and registered blind people to park close to their destination. Councils are responsible for the day to day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing whether people are eligible for the blue badge.
11. There are two ways of qualifying for a blue badge. People qualify if they receive certain benefits. This is known as automatic qualification. People also qualify through an assessed route if they have a permanent and substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
12. The Regulations say councils may refuse to issue a badge if an applicant fails to provide evidence of a substantial disability. If the application is refused, councils must give the applicant ‘particulars’ of the grounds of refusal. The Guidance also says the Council should set out clear reasons for why the applicant did not meet the criteria.
13. The Guidance strongly recommends councils establish an internal procedure to deal with appeals, which needs to be clear, straight forward and fair.
14. The Guidance states that 'While medical conditions such as autism, psychological or behavioural issues… are not in themselves a qualification for a badge, people with these conditions may be eligible for a badge if they are unable to walk or have very considerable difficulty in walking.’

Changes to blue badge eligibility

15. The Department for Transport (DfT) is introducing changes to the blue badge criteria so that some people with hidden disabilities will be eligible for a blue badge. The extended criteria are due to come into force on 30 August 2019.
16. One of the changes is a new eligibility criterion for people who score 10 points under the planning and following journeys activity of Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
17. The Council’s website says, “If you believe you may be eligible under the new scheme please do not apply yet. Any applications made before the new criteria are introduced will be assessed against the current criteria and may therefore be declined.”

What happened

18. Mr B suffers from Autism, learning disabilities and Epilepsy. He says this doesn’t affect his mobility and he can walk reasonably well, but he requires constant supervision due to his behaviour.
19. Mrs C completed an application for a blue badge for Mr B. His application stated his disabilities and medication that he took. It also outlined the impact having a blue badge made a difference to him being able to go out.
20. The Council decided not to issue Mr B a blue badge. It said Mr B’s medical conditions did not allow him to automatically qualify for a blue badge. The Council also explained how PIP scores would affect eligibility for a blue badge.
21. Mrs C appealed against the Council’s decision. She understood that Mr B’s PIP score meant he did not automatically qualify for a blue badge. Mrs C said a blue badge enabled Mr B to make journeys and go out because he had a hidden disability and needed two people to accompany him at all times. She said she felt the Council had not taken into account Mr B’s needs or safety and provided more information.
22. The Council considered Mr B’s appeal and made enquiries with Mr B’s respite carers. It invited Mr B for an Independent Mobility Assessment (IMA).
23. The Council did not agree to issue Mr B with a blue badge. It said the mobility assessment suggested he did not meet the eligibility criteria for a blue badge. It also referred to the IMA and the observations of Mr B’s walking ability.

Analysis

24. Mr B’s disabilities were taken into account at both the initial application and appeal. Case notes also show that symptoms affecting Mr B’s access to the community were also considered after his appeal. The Council consulted with Mr B’s Day Services and sought their views.
25. A written record was kept of the IMA. The assessor was aware of Mr B’s disabilities and difficulties accessing the community. Mrs C was present at the assessment. The IMA showed that Mr B had little difficulty walking.
26. The Council’s final decision letter was clear and included reasons, based on the IMA, why the decision had been reached.
27. The Council’s website has guidance about eligibility for blue badges. The Council’s website says applications will be determined under the existing criteria.
28. Mr B received PIP. He scored 12 points in the ‘planning and following a journey’ section and 0 points in the ‘moving around’ section. Mr B’s PIP scores do not allow him to automatically qualify for a blue badge under the current eligibility criteria. Under the new criteria due to come into effect in August 2019, Mr B may qualify for a blue badge under the new criterion. “people who score 10 points under the planning and following journeys activity of Personal Independence Payment by virtue of being unable to undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant.”
29. The Council says the transition of individuals from higher rate Disability Living Allowance (DLA) to PIP did not coincide with the new Guidance taking into account “hidden disabilities”. At the time of assessment the Council says the changes to eligibility were unknown.
30. The Council assessed Mr B according to eligibility criteria in place when he applied and followed the advice published on its website. The Council was not at fault in how it dealt with Mr B’s application for a blue badge.

Final decision

31. The Council was not at fault in how it dealt with Mr B’s application for a blue badge. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman