Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused her application for a Blue Badge. She said her ability to access shops was restricted as a result. The Council’s assessment of Mrs X’s mobility was not in line with Government guidance. This is fault, which caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council agreed to re-assess Mrs X. I also recommended the Council amend its assessment scorecard.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs X, said the Council wrongly refused her application for a Disabled Person’s Parking Badge (Blue Badge) despite her inability to walk for more than a few minutes without pain. She told me she was unable to access local shops as she could not walk to them from the car park.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have spoken to Mrs X and considered information provided by herself and by the Council. I have also considered the Government’s guidance on Blue Badge applications. I sent Mrs X and the Council a draft version of this statement and considered their comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

The Blue Badge Scheme

6. The Blue Badge scheme helps people with disabilities that cause mobility problems gain easier access to goods and services by allowing the holder to park where restrictions would normally apply. Local authorities are responsible for deciding if applicants are eligible for a Blue Badge and guidance from the Department for Transport details considerations when deciding applications.
7. The guidance states people are eligible for a badge if they are unable to walk, experience “very considerable difficulty” when walking or are at serious risk of harm when walking. Several factors may be relevant to deciding whether an applicant has “very considerable difficulty” walking including their subjective perception of pain, which the guidance says should be cross-referenced with information the applicant provides about their disability. Each aspect of walking – pain, breathlessness, speed, distance, manner and use of walking aids - is to be considered first in isolation and then in combination to reach a decision as to whether the applicant has an enduring disability.
8. The guidance says an applicant may be deemed to have very considerable difficulty in walking if they:
1. are unable to walk 30 metres in total; or
2. they can walk 30-80 metres without pain or breathlessness but “demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking through a combination of other factors - for example, extremely slow pace and/or their manner of walking”.
9. The guidance also says if an applicant cannot walk 40 metres in a minute including rest stops, “then this is an extremely slow pace which is likely to make walking very difficult when considered in isolation”.

What happened

10. In June 2019 Mrs X applied to the Council for a Blue Badge on the basis that her various medical conditions made walking for more than a few minutes painful. A private provider, Access Independent, was appointed by the Council to assess her eligibility. After a desk-top assessment Access Independent rejected her application.
11. Mrs X then appealed, enclosing reports from her GP and others about her medical conditions and mobility. In September 2019 an assessor conducted an observed mobility assessment. The assessor used a template scoresheet which marked applicants’ mobility against seven factors. The scoresheet said assessors should “observe and apply a score, noting their walking over a continuous distance”.
12. Up to five points were awardable for each factor except breathlessness, for which up to 13 points was awardable. At least 24 points were required to be eligible for a Blue Badge. The scorecard advised assessors to use the summary section if they felt the scores did not reflect their judgment, providing “good clinical reasoning”.
13. The assessor spoke to Mrs X who said she had a pain level of nine out of 10 when walking and that she used a mobility scooter.The assessor then observed Mrs X walking with the aid of a “frame stick” with a seat and climbing stairs. The assessor noted Mrs X took four minutes and 54 seconds to walk 80m with rests and awarded her five points for this – the maximum allowed for speed of walking under the template.
14. The assessor also awarded Mrs X two points out of a possible five for level of pain, noting that she reported calf spasms but was not taking analgesics.
15. In total Mrs X scored 18 points. In a summary section the assessor said Mrs X had been observed folding her scooter and lifting it into the boot of her car which showed “considerable strength and flexibility” and that she was able to walk 80 metres “with no visible signs of any substantial mobility impairment”.
16. The Council advised Mrs X her appeal had been unsuccessful. She then complained to us. She told me her walking ability had worsened since 2019, in part due to a fall which affected her back and has left her with ongoing leg pain.

Analysis

17. The scorecard used to assess Mrs X is flawed in that aside from breathlessness, each factor accounts for a maximum of five points. The Government’s guidance says if an applicant is unable to walk 30 metres in total, they can be deemed to have very considerable difficulty in walking, which means they are likely to be eligible for a Blue Badge. It should therefore be possible for an applicant in this position to score more than the five points allowed.
18. The guidance says if an applicant can only walk at the “extremely slow” pace of 0.67m/sec this would be likely to make walking “very difficult” when considered in isolation. To be aligned with the guidance one would expect an applicant with this pace to score highly. Mrs X walked at less than half this pace, at 0.27m/sec. However the maximum she could be awarded using the scorecard was five points – 21% of those required to be eligible for a Blue Badge.
19. In its response to the draft decision, the Council said a maximum of five points for the distance and speed categories are awarded because some applicants simulate difficulties during the observed exercise or provide no supporting medical evidence. However, this does not explain why the scoring system does not allow a genuine complainant, with the appropriate medical evidence, to score more highly in these categories.
20. In my view Access Independent, acting on behalf of the Council, did not carry out a fair assessment of Mrs X’s mobility. This is fault, causing injustice to Mrs X.
21. In the intervening period Mrs X has had a fall, which she says has exacerbated the pain in her legs. I recommended the Council carry out a re-assessment of Mrs X, taking into account her updated medical history. I also recommended the Council amend its scorecard so that it accords with the Government’s guidance.

Agreed action

22. The Council has:
1. re-assessed Mrs X’s mobility; and
2. told us it is overhauling its scoring system, with the review to be completed within three months of my decision.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council causing injustice to Mrs X. I have recommended actions to remedy this injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman