Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued our investigation into Mrs B’s complaint. The Council has reconsidered her daughter’s disabled parking badge application using the new government guidance, and has agreed to issue a badge, so it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs B, complains on behalf of her daughter, whom I refer to as Ms C. Mrs B says the Council refused Ms C’s application for a disabled parking badge because she does not have considerable difficulty walking. However, Mrs B says Ms C has autism, epilepsy and a learning disability, and needs the badge because she has little road safety awareness, so has to be parked close to her destination.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I spoke to Mrs B about her complaint, and considered information provided by Mrs B and the Council.
4. I wrote to Mrs B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council refused Ms C’s disabled parking badge renewal application in 2017. Mrs B applied again on Ms C’s behalf in January 2019, but the Council refused to issue a badge. It said this was because Ms C had zero ‘moving around’ personal independence payment (PIP) points, so did not have considerable difficulty walking.
6. Following contact from Mrs B’s MP, the Council acknowledged Ms C’s autism, and said the government would be issuing new criteria for the assessment of people with ‘hidden disabilities’ who applied for badges. However, it said it did not know when these criteria would come into force.
7. The new government guidance was issued in June 2019. It says an applicant will be eligible for a badge without further assessment if they receive the PIP mobility component and have 10 ‘planning and following journeys’ points under descriptor E (‘cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress’).
8. Ms C has 12 ‘planning and following journeys’ PIP points. The new guidance says this means she is not automatically eligible, and her eligibility should be considered following further assessment.
9. This new guidance is not in force until August 2019, and the Council was not under the duty to consider it when it made its decision on Ms C’s application earlier in the year.
10. However, the Council agreed to reconsider Ms C’s application with the new guidance in mind. It spoke to Mrs B and decided Ms C would be eligible following an assessment. It agreed to issue a badge to Ms C.
11. Given that the Council has agreed to do this, it is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a different outcome, so I will discontinue my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I have discontinued my investigation into Mrs B’s complaint. The Council has reconsidered Ms C’s disabled parking badge application using the new government guidance, and has agreed to issue a badge, so it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman