Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly rejected her daughter’s application for a Blue Badge. She said this caused her distress and inconvenience. The Council’s letter to Mrs X was misleading and failed to provide reasons why it rejected her application. However, it has demonstrated it considered Mrs X’ application in line with current guidance; therefore, she did not experience a significant injustice. The Council has revised its rejection letters and also carried out an audit of other rejected applicants which showed they did not experience an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council wrongly rejected her daughter, D’s, application for a Blue Badge.
2. She said the Council’s actions caused her stress and upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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)
5. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This included a copy of the Council’s correspondence with Mrs X.
7. I made reference to the Blue Badge Scheme Local Authority Guidance (England) June 2019 and the Disabled Person’s Parking Badges Act 2013.
8. I wrote to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Blue Badge scheme

9. The Department for Transport (Dft) has issued guidance to councils for providing Blue Badges. The Blue Badge scheme entitles drivers or passengers with mobility problems to park nearer to their destination.
10. To qualify for a Blue Badge, an applicant must be assessed by their council as either ‘eligible without further assessment’ or ‘eligible subject to further assessment’.
11. Adults who receive Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and are awarded 10 points in Section E of the mobility category (planning and following journeys) are automatically entitled to a Blue Badge without further assessment. Applicants in receipt of 12 points for Section F of the mobility category are not automatically eligible. Instead, the guidance states that “Such applicants should be considered under the ‘subject to further assessment’ criteria”.
12. ‘Subject to further assessment’ means the council will assess them to decide if they meet the requirements for a Blue Badge.
13. From 30 August 2019, people with hidden disabilities such as anxiety disorders or brain injuries can apply for a Blue Badge.
14. It is up to the relevant council to decide if an applicant meets the eligibility criteria for a Blue Badge.

What happened

15. In September 2019, Mrs X applied for a Blue Badge for her daughter Ms D who has a number of significant health conditions. Ms D receives PIP and has 12 points under Section F of the mobility category.
16. The Council wrote to Mrs X later that month. The letter said “You must receive 10 points specifically under the ‘Planning and Following Journeys’ activity of the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment to qualify for a badge. Unfortunately, anything other than 10 points means you do not qualify”.
17. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision. The Council repeated its position that if an applicant did not have 10 points under the relevant category, they automatically did not qualify. The letter failed to signpost Mrs X to the Ombudsman if she was unhappy with the Council’s actions.
18. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman.
19. During my investigation, the Council provided information about how it considered Mrs X’s application under the ‘subject to further assessment’ criteria. It explained it used a system of scoring when considering these applications, using the evidence provided. It showed that Mrs X’s application has not scored enough discretionary points to be awarded a Blue Badge.
20. The Council said the rejection letters it was using were misleading. It has revised these letters and sent an example to the Ombudsman.

My findings

21. We are not an appeal body, so cannot comment on the merits of judgements and decisions made by councils in the absence of fault in the process. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made, and, where we find fault, to determine what injustice it caused.
22. On the evidence so far seen, there was no fault in how the Council assessed Mrs X’s application. It first determined whether Ms D had sufficient PIP points to automatically award her a Blue Badge. She did not and so the Council then carried out an additional assessment when it considered the additional information Mrs X had provided. It determined Ms D was not eligible for a Blue Badge. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
23. However, the letter sent Mrs X was misleading because it appeared the Council had not considered her application in line with the guidance. It also failed to provide full details explaining why it has refused Ms D a Blue Badge. This is fault. However, because the actual process used by the Council to assess Ms D was in line with the guidance this did not cause her a significant injustice.
24. The Council also failed to signpost Mrs X to the Ombudsman if she was unhappy with the outcome of her appeal. This is fault. However, Mrs X did bring her complaint to us and so this did not cause her an injustice.
25. We can investigate matters which come to our attention during an investigation,
    if a member of the public who has not complained is likely to have suffered an injustice as a result. The Council has carried out an audit of the other applicants it rejected because they did not have 10 PIP points. These applicants provided no additional information so the Council could not assess them under the ‘subject to further assessment’ criteria. Therefore, it is highly unlikely they experienced an injustice. However, the Council says it will invite these applicants to resubmit their applications.
26. The Council has provided revised letters which it now issues to rejected applicants. These are satisfactory to meet the guidance.

Back to top

Final decision

27. There was fault but this did not lead to injustice. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman