Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council refused her application for a blue badge for her son. The Council has accepted fault and has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and arrange an independent mobility assessment. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation on this basis.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council refused to renew her son’s (Mr Y’s) 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. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), 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 about her complaint and spoke to her on the telephone. I gave Mrs X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Department for Transport’s Blue Badge Scheme Local Authority Guidance (England) 2014 is not statutory guidance, but the Council follows it. The Council also has a policy on blue badges, which incorporates that Guidance and gives more detail on interpretation. We set out relevant parts of the Guidance below.
7. Some groups are automatically eligible for a blue badge including:
• those who receive the high rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance DLA); and
• those who receive 8 points or more under the ‘moving around’ activity of the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment. (PIP)
8. Those who are not automatically eligible for a badge, may qualify after further assessment if they have a permanent and substantial disability that causes an inability to walk or very considerable difficulty walking.
9. The Guidance says mobility assessments are good practice where decisions on eligibility may be unclear. It says

‘… whilst desk-based assessments have a role as a filtering mechanism to identify applicants who are clearly eligible or clearly ineligible for a badge, they cannot be successfully used as the sole means of determining all applicants' eligibility for a badge.’

10. The Guidance says when considering whether someone has very considerable difficulty in walking several factors may be relevant: excessive pain; breathlessness; distance walked; speed; use of walking aids; outdoor walking ability; and whether walking presents a danger to the applicant’s life or would be likely to lead to a serious deterioration in their health.
11. The Guidance also says:

‘Whilst medical conditions such as asthma, Crohn's disease/incontinent conditions, autism, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) and other mental/cognitive/intellectual disabilities 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. Eligibility is not determined by the presence or absence of any particular diagnosis or condition. Provided that an applicant has a permanent and substantial disability, a local authority's eligibility decision should be based on whether the applicant’s difficulty in walking meets the criterion in the regulations.’

12. Appendix G of the Guidance identifies the ‘core principles’ for independent mobility assessments. They include ‘observing’ the applicant walking.
13. The Department for Transport has carried out a consultation exercise with a view to making changes to clarify its Guidance. The forward to the consultation exercise, which has now ended, said ‘the current rules embrace all conditions, physical or otherwise, but it has become clear to us that the regulations and guidance are not clearly understood by local authorities. People with hidden disabilities may be finding it difficult to access badges, even though their condition causes them very significant difficulties undertaking a journey.’

Back to top

What happened in this case

14. Mrs X’s son, Mr Y is diagnosed as having downs syndrome and autistic spectrum disorder. He had a blue badge for many years, having been automatically eligible as he received the higher rate mobility component of DLA.
15. Mr Y now receives PIP rather than DLA. He is no longer automatically eligible for a blue badge as he does not have eight points or more under the moving around activity of the mobility component of PIP.
16. Mrs X applied to renew Mr Y’s blue badge. With the application she enclosed a letter from Mr Y’s GP. The GP supported Mr Y’s application for a blue badge.
17. The Council completed a desktop assessment matrix for Mr Y on 31 August 2018. The decision said “medical evidence received, concentrates mainly on LD/mental, not sufficient info on mobility to approve”.
18. The Council wrote to Mr Y saying he was not eligible for a blue badge. Mrs X appealed and asked the Council to carry out an independent mobility assessment.
19. The appeal was unsuccessful. The Council wrote to Mrs X and said that Mr Y previously automatically qualified for a blue badge based on his entitlement to the mobility component of DLA. It said that Mr Y now received a PIP which scored him zero points in the moving around category and therefore was no longer automatically entitled to a badge. It said “in the application for a badge it is noted that [Mr Y] can walk (albeit on his own terms) and that he can also suddenly run. His PIP assessment acknowledges that he can stand and then move more than 200 metres either aided or unaided”. It said Mr Y did not qualify by way of having a permanent and substantial disability which caused inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
20. The Council did not offer Mr Y an independent mobility assessment.
21. During this investigation the Council approached the Ombudsman and accepted that it was at fault for failing to offer Mr Y an independent mobility assessment. It has now agreed to do this, and Mrs X is satisfied that this remedies her complaint.

Agreed action

22. That within four weeks of my final decsion the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mrs X for the failure to offer her son an independent mobility assessment;
• Carry out an independent mobility assessment with Mr Y.

Back to top

Final decision

23. The Council has accepted fault and agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mr Y and Mrs X. I have discontinued my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman