Leeds City Council (19 013 274)

Category : Adult care services > Transport

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 25 Mar 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached a decision not to award Miss X a blue badge.

The complaint

  1. Miss X complains the Council has not properly considered her application for a blue badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
  2. 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

  1. I have:
  • considered the complaint and discussed it with Miss X;
  • considered the correspondence between Miss X and the Council, including the Council’s response to the complaint;
  • made enquiries of the Council and considered the responses;
  • taken account of relevant legislation;
  • offered Miss X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document.

Back to top

What I found

The Blue Badge scheme

  1. The Blue Badge scheme is to help disabled people with severe mobility problems access goods and services by allowing them to park near their destination. The scheme provides parking concessions for blue badge holders. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing whether people are eligible for a badge
  2. The Department for Transport Guidance says that people who can walk 80 metres and do not demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking are not eligible for a badge. Councils should take into account factors such as pain, speed, balance, gait and shortness of breath when assessing if someone can walk 80 metres. The guidance says that people who walk slowly will not be eligible if that is the only qualifying factor.
  3. New rules came into force on 30 August 2019. These are designed to make it easier for people with problems that are not exclusively linked to the physical act of walking to qualify for a badge.

What happened

  1. Miss X has severe anxiety and other mental health problems. She says she “does not go out much’. She believes having a blue badge would give her more confidence to get out more.
  2. She applied to the Council for a blue badge under the ‘eligible subject to further assessment’ criteria. In her application Miss X said she experiences anxiety and, on occasions panic attacks when she is near a busy road. She gave the name of a psychiatrist involved in her care.
  3. To qualify under this criterion a person must have an enduring (lasting for at least three years) and substantial disability and meet one or more of the following categories:
  • A person who drives a vehicle regularly, has a severe disability in both arms and is unable to operate, or has considerable difficulty in operating, all or some types of parking meter
  • A person who is unable to walk during the course of a journey. A person who experiences very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include psychological distress; or Be at risk of serious harm when walking; or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person.
  1. The Council says, “there was little evidence on the application form, from [Miss X], that demonstrated eligibility for a Blue Badge under the non-visible criteria as above”.
  2. As part of the Council’s initial screening of the application, it checked its social care records to establish if Miss X had social care needs. It had information from 2018/19 which that indicated that Miss X was accessing public transport with no issues.
  3. The Guidance says where evidence provided by an applicant is insufficient to determine eligibility councils should “seek certification of eligibility from an expert assessor”.
  4. In her application Miss X gave details of a psychiatrist involved in her care. The Council deemed the Psychiatrist could be the ‘expert assessor’. It asked Miss X for more details. Miss X told the Council she had been discharged in 2015. She was not known to any other team/professional who could act as an expert assessor.
  5. On 1 October 2019 the Council wrote to Miss X to say, based on the information she had submitted, it had been unable to establish that her mobility was affected to the level where she had ‘very considerable difficulty whilst walking’.
  6. Miss X submitted an appeal to the Council and provided a letter from her GP and a personal independent payment (PIP) award letter to support her application.
  7. The Council considered the information. It concluded the PIP award letter showed no evidence that Miss X has any issues with moving around and scored ‘0’ points. It did show she has some difficulty planning and following a journey. The GP letter did not provide enough evidence to support eligibility for a blue badge.
  8. The Council wrote to Miss X on 25 October 2019 to say her appeal had not been successful and explained the reasons why, that the evidence she provided did not demonstrate she suffered from “very considerable psychological distress when you are out and about”. The author of the letter said Miss X had no health professionals involved in her care, and as such it was unable to obtain an expert assessor report.

Analysis

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if Miss X should have a blue badge. This is the Council’s role. The Ombudsman’s role is to make sure the Council made the decision properly; that it considered all relevant information.
  2. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council took account of all relevant information and decided Miss X’s blue badge application, and her appeal, without fault.
  3. In the absence of fault in the way the Council reached a decision, the Ombudsman has no remit to question the merits of the decision however much someone may dislike or disagree with it.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Miss X’s blue badge application or her appeal. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.
  2. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings