Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to give the complainant a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision not to give her a Blue Badge. She says she qualifies because she has long-term mental health problems which have a severe impact on her life.

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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the letters the Council sent to Ms X about the application. I considered Ms X’s application, her medical evidence, the assessment reports and the government guidance. I also considered comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue badge government guidance – hidden disabilities

4. New rules started in 2019 which mean that some people with a hidden disability can qualify for a Blue Badge. People can qualify if they have very considerable difficulty while walking which can include psychological distress. To qualify on the grounds of mobility the person must be unable to walk 80 metres. Not everyone with a hidden disability will qualify for a Blue Badge.

What happened

5. Ms X applied for a Blue Badge on the grounds of hidden disabilities. She explained she has OCD, depression and anxiety. She gave some examples of the problems she experiences which include being worried she will not find a parking space and feeling anxious if a bus comes close to the car. She said she needs to control and plan everything. She explained she saw a psychiatrist until 2012 and then from 2015 to 2017. Ms X sent a letter her psychiatrist wrote in 2015. He confirmed the difficulties and said they were reasonably well-controlled by medication. He also said Ms X enjoys running.
6. Ms X’s GP confirmed the difficulties she has and said she feels dread at the thought of not finding a parking space. The doctor said Ms X likes to be accompanied by her brother.
7. The Council assessed the application. The assessors noted Ms X’s medical problems and considered factors such as her ability to cope with a journey and keep safe, her anxiety particularly around parking, and whether she needs assistance when walking. As part of the assessment Ms X confirmed she can walk more than 80 metres. The Council decided Ms X does not qualify for a badge. It accepts she has mental heath difficulties and a problem with her knee, but it decided she had not demonstrated she experiences very considerable psychological distress when walking.
8. Ms X appealed and stressed how anxious she feels about trying to find a parking space and that having a badge would help to alleviate this. A different assessor considered the appeal but reached the same decision that Ms X does not qualify for a badge.
9. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision. She has stressed she has long-term mental health conditions which the Council has ignored. She says it would be difficult to demonstrate psychological distress while walking without appearing deranged.

Assessment

10. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council has made a decision.
11. The Council considered the information from Ms X, her GP and her psychiatrist. It considered all the information I would expect it to consider when assessing if someone qualifies under the new rules. The Council accepts Ms X has long-term problems, including anxiety about parking. However, the rules say the person must experience considerable psychological distress when walking and Ms X has not said anything, or provided evidence, to show that applies to her. The Council’s decision not to award a badge is consistent with the guidance so there is no reason to start an investigation.
12. Ms X is critical of the two assessors and says the second one did not contact her. But, the two assessments were both thorough and considered the relevant issues. The second assessor may not have contacted Ms X but the application was still assessed by two different people.
13. Ms X is also critical of the requirement to demonstrate considerable psychological distress while walking. But, the Blue Badge rules are set by central government and the Council has to follow them. Neither the Council nor the Ombudsman can change the rules. If Ms X thinks the rules should be changed she would need to contact her MP.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman