Cambridgeshire County Council (19 014 125)

Category : Adult care services > Transport

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 29 Jun 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council did not follow Department of Transport (DfT) guidance in its initial refusal of a Blue Badge. During our investigation, the Council reassessed the complainant and awarded him a Blue Badge. The Council has agreed to apologise to the complainant and make changes in the way it responds to appeals.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr D, complains the Council has refused his application for a Blue Badge. This makes going out and parking near places difficult.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I read Mr D’s complaint and the information he provided. I read through a chronology provided by the Council and all the appeal documents and assessments.
  2. I also considered the Department for Transport’s Blue Badge Scheme Local Authority Guidance (England) 2019.
  3. I have written to Mr D and the Council with my draft decision and considered any comments made.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

  1. Mr D made an application for a Blue Badge. The Council, via a commissioned service, used a points system to assess Mr D’s eligibility for a Blue Badge.
  2. Successful applicants need to get 12 or more points. The Council awarded Mr D nine points.
  3. The assessor notes that although Mr D’s points score suggests ineligibility the “OT feels it is unlikely that pt condition will improve. He does experience discomfort when mobilising due to his ankle.”
  4. The assessor records Mr D walking 80 metres. A later record says she/he saw Mr D walking at a much slower pace, 40 to 60 metres in one minute. The assessor records the time taken to walk 80 metres as two minutes 46 seconds.
  5. The Council sent Mr D a standard letter saying he was ineligible for a Blue Badge. It provided no detail about why he was unsuccessful. Mr D appealed and provided information about his ankle which makes walking slow and painful.
  6. The Council rejected Mr D’s appeal with another standard letter quoting the eligibility criteria.
  7. Following a draft decision the Council reassessed Mr D and awarded him a Blue Badge.

What should have happened

  1. The DfT issues guidance to councils for providing Blue Badges to disabled people with severe mobility problems. Eligibility is based on several factors. In this case eligibility is based on the applicant having a permanent and substantial disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
  2. The guidance sets out several factors that are relevant in the decision making. These include:-
  • excessive pain;
  • breathlessness;
  • distance;
  • speed;
  • length of time they are able to walk for;
  • manner in which they walk;
  • use of walking aids;
  • outdoor walking ability;
  • danger to applicant’s life/serious deterioration in their health.
  1. It says 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 would be deemed as eligible.
  1. When making decisions the DfT says applicants who are 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.”

Is there fault causing injustice?

  1. The assessment completed by the Council is confusing. The points score deems Mr D as ineligible, but the commentary seems to support Mr D receiving a Blue Badge. I consider this is fault.
  2. Similarly the assessor records Mr D as both walking 80 metres within two minutes 46 seconds and 40 to 60 metres within 60 seconds. This is at odds. It means it took Mr D over a minute to walk the latter 40 metres and in the extreme case 1 minute 46 seconds to walk 20 metres. It is therefore unclear whether Mr D was entitled to an extra point.
  3. The Council uses standard paragraphs giving general advice about the qualifying criteria for Blue Badges. It does not have any information specific to the individual application or information within the appeal letter. This is not in line with DfT guidance and is fault.
  4. Up until the Council awarded Mr D a Blue Badge, he had the uncertainty of not knowing the full reasons about why the Council rejected his application and what information was relevant when completing the appeal.

Agreed and completed action

  1. I consider there was fault by the Council. In my draft decision I made several recommendations. In its response the Council says it has:-
      1. awarded Mr D a Blue Badge;
      2. advised the commissioned service completing the assessments to ensure it provides a detailed explanation of decisions made, will check the accuracy of the times and distances walked and use the free text boxes to add detail;
      3. in line with a previous Ombudsman’s decision amended decline and appeal letters so they are personalised explaining why individuals do not meet the eligibility criteria.
  2. It has also agreed to apologise to Mr D for the failures I have identified within a month of the final decision

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have now completed my investigation and closed the complaint based on the action already taken and the further agreed action above.

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