Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a blue badge permit. She said the Council did not consider her hidden disability. The Ombudsman discontinued his investigation. This is because the Council has now awarded Ms X a blue badge and made changes to its assessment process for hidden disabilities.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a blue badge permit. She said the Council did not properly consider her hidden, non-physical, disability.
2. The Council’s decision caused Ms X frustration and distress.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and documents provided by the complainant. I then asked the Council for more information.
5. Ms X and the Council both had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Ms X, who suffers from severe irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) applied to the Council for a blue badge due to her hidden disability on 19 September 2019. In her application, Ms X said a blue badge would help her stop outside any toilet and relieve her anxiety if she has a flare up. She cannot use public transport or a taxi because of her condition.
7. A Council Occupational Therapist (OT) reviewed Ms X’s application on 16 September. The OT found no clear evidence of Ms X’s condition, so the Council wrote to her requesting further information. It said it could not to determine her eligibility on the information provided and it needed evidence from a professional involved in Ms X’s care.
8. Ms X contacted the Council on 28 October. She said no further information was available as no professionals are involved in her care, only her GP.
9. After officers discussed her application, the Council wrote to Ms X again on 29 October. It said it could not assess her eligibility without further information from a professional involved in her care. It said it could not approach her GP for information.
10. Ms X telephoned the Council on 8 November. She said she had no further information to provide.
11. The Council wrote to Ms X on 12 November declining her application. The Council said it had been unable to establish Ms X’s mobility is affected to the level where she has ‘very considerable difficulty whilst walking’ or that her condition poses ‘serious harm’ to herself or others.
12. Ms X appealed the decision on 19 November. She said she suffered with IBS for over 40 years, that she had seen numerous specialists in that time, and the conclusion was IBS.
13. The Council reviewed Ms X’s application but did not change its decision. It wrote to Ms X on 22 November. It said there was insufficient professional evidence to show she suffered from very considerable psychological distress when she was out and about. The Council said it could not get an expert assessor report from a health professional involved in her case.
14. Ms X appealed the decision again. On 4 December 2019, the Council wrote to Ms X to say she had not demonstrated in her letters that there was anyone involved in her care that could be an expert assessor, qualified to diagnose, treat, or provide therapeutic services. This cannot be a GP. The Council said it had been unable to determine her application under the non-visible criteria.
15. Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 17 December. She said the Council was not considering her condition. She wanted the Council to reconsider her application under the new hidden disabilities’ guidelines.

Response to my enquiries

16. After reviewing Ms X’s complaint, I asked the Council for more information about its decision.
17. The Council told me Ms X was unable to provide professional opinion to support her application and could not provide enough evidence her condition met the non-visible eligibility criteria.
18. Since new Department for Transport guidance was implemented, and Ms X’s complaint, the Council has been working on amending processes for people applying under the non-visible criteria who have bowel conditions as their main reason for very considerable difficulty walking. The Council offered Ms X another assessment with the new set of questions which have recently been devised.

Back to top

Analysis

19. The Council has reviewed its assessment process and offered Ms X a new assessment with questions applicable to her condition. This is in line with what the Ombudsman would recommend if I had found fault with the Council’s decision.
20. Following a new assessment under the Council’s amended process, the Council decided Ms X is eligible for a blue badge.
21. Ms X confirmed she is satisfied with the outcome and considers her complaint is resolved.
22. I decided to discontinue my investigation because a suitable remedy has been provided and it is unlikely there is anything further I can achieve by continuing my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

23. Subject to further comments by Ms X and the Council, I intend to discontinue my investigation. This is because the Council has now awarded Ms X a blue badge and made changes to its assessment process for hidden disabilities.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman