Summary: Miss B complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her disabled parking (Blue Badge) application. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council’s assessment, notification and review process. We recommend the Council carries out a new assessment.

The complaint

1. Mrs B disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse her Blue Badge application and review.

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’. 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)
3. 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

4. I read Mrs B’s complaint and information provided by the Council. This includes Mrs B’s Blue Badge application, the mobility assessment report and letters from her doctors. I sent my draft decision to Mrs B and the Council and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

5. The Department for Transport (DfT) has issued guidance on the Blue Badge scheme. This guidance says people who can walk more than 80 metres, and who do not demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking, are not eligible for a Blue Badge. Councils should consider factors such as pain, speed, balance, gait and shortness of breath when assessing if someone can walk 80 metres.
6. The guidance says people 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.
7. Having a certain medical condition does not in itself qualify an applicant for a badge. Rather it is the effect of the condition or disability on the applicant’s ability to walk that is assessed. The guidance says a person’s eligibility should be confirmed by an independent mobility assessor, unless it is self-evident that the applicant is clearly eligible or ineligible for a badge.
8. The guidance says an assessor should cross reference all the information with their own observations. They should consider each aspect of walking, “first in isolation, and then in combination, to reach a decision as to whether they combine to mean the applicant experiences very considerable difficulty in walking.”
9. The guidance says:

“The DfT strongly recommends that every applicant who is 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.”

10. The Council uses a contractor for its assessments. The contractor uses a points based scoring system for assessing applications. Applicants who score over 24 points qualify for a badge.

What happened

11. Mrs B has rheumatoid arthritis and has difficulty walking and getting about. She applied for a Blue Badge in September 2016 and was successful.
12. In October 2019, Mrs B applied for a renewal of her Blue Badge. The Council carried out a mobility assessment and decided Mrs B did not qualify. The assessment form notes Mrs B scored a total of 22 points (see paragraph 10). The form notes the assessor chose descriptors that Mrs B walked:
• 30-50 metres before reporting discomfort;
• 40-60 metres in a minute. This included more than two stops with resting time of 10 seconds or more. There was no breathlessness and recovery was immediate.
13. The assessor notes on the form:
• she observed Mrs B walking approximately 21.6 metres in approximately 45 seconds (to the lifts);
• Mrs B then walked a further distance (it mentions a shop, but not how far this was), before needing to stop again;
• changes in Mrs B’s condition and medications, suggesting she was managing her symptoms.
14. The decision letter to Mrs B informed her she had not met the criteria to qualify for a Blue Bad m8ge. It did not explain the reasons she did not qualify.
15. Mrs B appealed. She provided the Council with medical letters from a hospital rheumatology department and her GP.
16. The Council’s Blue Badge panel review board reviewed Mrs B’s application, Its decision upheld the assessor’s decision. The appeal record has the assessor’s comments from the mobility assessment form and notes Mrs B scored 22 points. The decision says: “scored 29 before is much improved”.

Was there fault by the Council?

The assessment

17. There is a lack of detail about how the Council assessed certain features of Mrs B’s mobility. The only measurement that allows a third party reader to understand the assessed measurements is a distance walked of 21.6 metres in 45 seconds. That equates to a speed of around 28 metres a minute (presumably without stops, as none are mentioned). The Guidance notes that a speed of less than 40 metres a minute likely makes walking very difficult, when considered in isolation.
18. I note the assessor did not award Mrs B the maximum number of points for speed. But I would have expected to have seen a record that allowed me to understand why that speed descriptor was chosen, as this conflicts with the only recorded measurement.
19. I acknowledge points based scoring systems are widely used in disabled parking badge assessments. But the guidance recommends councils provide clear explanations of the reasons for decisions. Here the Council’s record does not allow a third party reader to understand apparently conflicting information.
20. The letter the Council sent Mrs B should have given an explanation. To not do so was also fault.

The review

21. The guidance advises assessors to consider all information when assessing eligibility. For her appeal, Mrs B took some time to submit some evidence from healthcare professionals. I would have expected to see some reference to the new evidence in the record of the review. I can see none. That makes the review unsatisfactory. This amounts to fault.

Recommended action

22. Within a month of my final decision, I recommended the Council:
1. Write to Mrs B offering her a new assessment.
2. Set out a plan for how it will ensure that, in its decision letters, it provides applicants with “detailed explanations” of the reasons for refusing an application.
3. Remind its assessors that:

• their record of decisions must allow a third-party reader to follow the reasons for a decision; and
• decisions (including review decisions) should have some reference to other evidence an applicant submits.

The Council has agreed to these recommendations and to providing evidence to show completion.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendations, so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman