Summary: Mr J complains the Council’s contractor refused his application for a Blue Badge. We have found some fault with the information the Council and its provider gave Mr J. But our view is this is unlikely to have made a difference to the decision itself. So the injustice to Mr J is limited.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr J, complains the Council refused his application for a Blue Badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we 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. We 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 investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered Mr J’s complaint;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Mr J;
• sent my draft decision to Mr J and the Council and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

6. The Council is responsible for the assessment of eligibility for Blue Badges. Harrow Council Concessionary Travel Eligibility Criteria Statement advises it has a mobility assessment contract with an independent company of health professionals.
7. That company is Access Independent (AI). It administers all aspects of the application, assessment, decision and appeal process. The Council remains responsible and accountable for the eligibility criteria and assessments.

Blue badges

8. Regulations set out which people are entitled to disabled parking badges. Some of these people are automatically eligible. 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.
9. Following amendments to the Regulations in 2011, a person’s eligibility should be confirmed by an independent mobility assessor, unless it is self-evident that the applicant is eligible or ineligible for a badge.
10. The Department for Transport’s Blue Badge Scheme Local Authority Guidance (England) is not statutory guidance, but the Council follows it and its Eligibility Criteria Statement includes its recommendations. At the time of Mr J’s complaint, the relevant Guidance was the 2014 version.
11. The Guidance says that applicants:
• who can walk more than 80 metres, and do not demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking through any other factors, would not be deemed as eligible.
• may be eligible if they can walk 30-80 metres without pain or breathlessness, but demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking through a combination of other factors (ie speed and/or manner of walking).
• who cannot walk 40 metres in a minute (including stops) are walking at an extremely slow pace which is likely to make walking very difficult, when considered in isolation.
12. The categories the Council considers when assessing applicants are broadly similar to the suggested categories in the government guidance. The assessment has seven sets of activities related to walking. Each question has five possible answers. The answers are scored from 0 to 5, depending on the assessed level of difficulty within each category. An applicant needs at least 24 points to qualify for a Blue Badge.
13. Having a certain medical condition does not in itself qualify an applicant for a badge. Rather it is the effect of the condition or disability on the applicant’s ability to walk that is assessed.
14. The Guidance says:

“The DfT strongly recommends that every applicant who is refused a badge should be given a detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal. It is not sufficient to simply state that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria. The Local Government Ombudsman expects authorities to provide a clear explanation of the reasons why an application has been refused in the decision letter.”

15. The Council says that:

“It is Access independent policy to include a copy of the last page of the assessment form detailing the assessor hand written reasoning for the decision, until such time as a digital solution can be implemented to pull through typed reasoning data onto decision letters. This provides a reasonable level of detail into the assessor reason for declining an individual application/appeal … decision letters produced at the desk based stage are more generic and are only specific to the criteria applied under rather than the merits of the individuals case, and we are actively implementing solutions to rectify this currently.”

16. The Harrow Council Concessionary Travel Eligibility Criteria Statement says:
• the Council uses a “step-by-step approach” in assessing applications with four stages:
1. Paper Assessment
2. Further Information
3. Clinical Assessment
4. Appeal.
17. The Statement also says:

“Where an application has been refused, either initially or on appeal, the applicant cannot reapply within 9 months of the refusal unless, and only when, the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate that their mobility has deteriorated to a point where they would now meet the eligibility criteria. If appropriate, the applicant will then be invited to reapply and that application will be fully assessed.”

What happened

18. Mr J says he has osteoarthritis in both knees, a compressed spine and problems with his neck. He applied for a Blue Badge. In April 2019 the Council’s contractor refused his Blue Badge application at its paper assessment stage. The letter did not provide any reasons specific to Mr J, why he did not qualify.
19. Mr J appealed in May. As a result, the contractor invited him to an assessment. The assessor scored Mr J 14 points. To qualify, Mr J needed to score 24 or more points.
20. The appeal decision letter referred to an attached appeal summary outlining why Mr J did not qualify. The letter advised Mr J:

“If your circumstances change you are able to re-apply for a Blue Badge 9 months from the date of this letter by completing a new application.”

21. In response to my enquiries, the Council said:
• it appreciated a more customised decision letter (for applications refused at its paper stage) was desirable. In similar complaints, it advised it was hoping to improve this through “system changes” in the near future.
• Confirmed that after it had completed an assessment, it was including the last page of the assessment report with decision letters.

Was there fault by the Council?

22. My view is the Council was at fault in not sending Mr J a detailed explanation of he did not qualify with this initial application. The Council says it accepts this is desirable.
23. At appeal stage, the Council did send Mr J out a copy of the last page of assessment record. This includes a handwritten summary. This record includes several acronyms and abbreviations: “O/A”, “TKR”, “PID”, “LI/LZ” for example. My view is including this last page is an improvement on AI’s previous practice, of not providing any specific reasons for refusal. But the fact that it is handwritten and uses abbreviations, that may not always be understandable to a lay reader, means it does not meet the guidance’s recommendation for a clear explanation.
24. I also note the decision letters gave incorrect advice about the Council’s policy about re-applications. Its Statement says an applicant can apply without waiting nine months, if they have a change of circumstances that affects mobility.

Did the fault cause an injustice?

25. My view is the faults did not cause Mr J a significant injustice. This is because he did make an appeal, despite the lack or reasons. And I have not heard from him of a significant change in his circumstances.
26. And it is not the Ombudsman’s role to question the merits of a decision, unless there is evidence of fault with the decision making. Here the faults I have identified are not with the decision making; rather they are about the information the Council provided Mr J.
27. I see no fault with the assessment itself or the decision from it. So my view is, while I have identified fault, my view is these did not affect the decision.

Back to top

Recommended action

28. However, my view is the Council does need to improve the information it provides. The Council says it cannot commit to a timescale for doing so. But will endeavour to make the changes, over the next 18 months, when contracts allow.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I uphold the complaint. But my view is the faults I have found did not cause Mr J a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman