Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the way the Council has assessed his son, Mr B, for a Blue Badge. This is because there is no evidence of fault with the decision taken by the Council when assessing Mr B’s eligibility for a Blue Badge.

The complaint

1. Mr A is unhappy with the way the Council has interpreted the Department for Transport (DfT) guidance on eligibility for Blue Badges. Mr A says his son, Mr B, meets the criteria for a Blue Badge as he has hidden disabilities and severe mental impairments which should automatically qualify him for a 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’. 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 we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I discussed the concerns with Mr A and considered the information and documentation he and the Council provided. I sent Mr A a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr A is concerned the Council is wrongly interpreting the Department for Transport guidance and says Mr B’s disabilities automatically entitle him to a Blue Badge.
5. The Disabled Persons’ Parking Badge Scheme (Blue Badge) provides a national arrangement of on-street parking concessions for severely disabled people who are unable, or find it difficult, to use public transport.
6. The Department for Transport issues Guidance to Councils for providing Blue Badges to disabled people with severe mobility problems. The Guidance introduced specific criteria for assessing an applicant’s eligibility which was not a feature of the previous scheme.
7. The Guidance sets out two types of eligibility criteria for issuing Blue Badges: ‘Eligible without further assessment’ and ‘Eligible subject to further assessment’. To qualify under the latter, “an applicant must have a permanent and substantial disability that means they cannot walk, or means they have very considerable difficulty walking.”
8. The Guidance identifies specific factors for Councils to consider when assessing an applicant’s eligibility for a badge:
• Excessive pain
• Breathlessness
• Distance and length of time to walk
• Pace
• Manner of walking
• Danger to life for applicants with serious chest and lung conditions.
9. 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.
10. The Council assessed Mr A for a Blue Badge in May. The outcome of that assessment was that he did not meet the criteria. Mr A appealed the decision. He was advised his appeal was unsuccessful in July 2019.
11. Mr A has confirmed Mr B can walk more than 80 metres without very considerable difficulty. The Ombudsman could not say there is any fault with the Council’s decision not to issue Mr B with a Blue Badge.
12. Mr A is concerned that amendments to the guidance to include hidden disabilities in assessments for Blue Badges are not being properly considered.
13. The DfT guidance was amended in August 2019 to include hidden disabilities. Mr A says the Council is interpreting the guidance incorrectly. I have not seen any evidence to support Mr A’s views that the DfT guidance is not being properly considered.
14. The DfT guidance says:

15. 19
For applicants in receipt of PIP, a local authority should not base a decision to award a Blue Badge on a combined score from both the ‘planning and following journeys’ and ‘moving around’ Mobility Activity. If an applicant does not meet the required score for either Mobility Activity, then they fail to meet either of the above ‘eligible without further assessment’ PIP criteria and may be considered instead under the ‘subject to further assessment’ criteria (see below).

While cumulative points under the “moving around” mobility activity can count towards qualification under this criterion, this does not apply to the ‘planning and following journeys’ mobility activity. Under the ‘planning and following journeys’ mobility activity only a score of 10 points for Descriptor E (‘cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant’) counts as meeting eligibility. Applicants in receipt of 10 points for Descriptor D, or 12 points for Descriptor F under the ‘planning and following journeys’ mobility activity do not qualify under this criterion. Such applicants should be considered under the ‘subject to further assessment’ criteria.

16. Mr A says the Council is acting unlawfully saying those who meet descriptor D are not automatically eligible and only descriptor E is an automatic right. However, the amended guidance above demonstrates this is not the case. The Ombudsman could not say this is fault.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault with the decision taken by the Council in assessing Mr B’s eligibility for a Blue Badge.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman