Summary: Mr B complained about the way in which the Council considered his son’s (Mr C’s) disabilities when it refused his application for a blue badge. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Cambridgeshire County Council (the Council) failed to properly consider Mr C’s disabilities when refusing his blue badge application. This has caused Mr C frustration and distress.

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. 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 have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue Badge Scheme local authority guidance (August 2019)

5. This guidance was updated to include consideration of ‘hidden disabilities’. It says people may be eligible if they ‘experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress’.

What happened

6. Mr B applied for a blue badge on behalf of his son Mr C, who has autism. On the application form Mr B said Mr C:
• was a risk near vehicles in car parks because he gets easily distracted.
• struggles to plan or follow a journey.
• has ‘melt-downs’ when he gets anxious (particularly in busy public places) which could put himself and others in danger.
• needed a badge to get nearer to his destination, to reduce his anxiety.
7. Mr C was in receipt of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) for mobility as he couldn’t follow a route of a familiar journey without another person. However, he did not meet the automatic qualification criteria for a blue badge and the Council had to consider his application under the discretionary criteria.
8. Mr B also submitted Mr C’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), which said Mr and Mrs B were worried about Mr C getting a taxi to college with a driver he doesn’t know.
9. The Council assessed the claim on 31 January 2020. It awarded a score between 0 and 5 under different headings, including communication skills, cognitive ability/memory/hazard awareness, behavioural. It referred to the information provided by Mr B on the application form, his PIP award and the EHCP. It noted the EHCP did not refer to any behaviour issues. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence that Mr C experiences very considerable psychological distress when walking or taking a journey and refused his application.
10. Mr B submitted an appeal, enclosing a letter from Mr C’s consultant from 2004 and a form completed by a GP from Mr C’s practice. She said she had not seen Mr C, but said his mother reported that Mr C can find walking through crowds overwhelming, he doesn’t realise the risk strangers can pose and he can put himself and others in danger.
11. The Council assessed Mr C’s case again. The assessment referred to all the evidence provided and again scored his claim under a number of headings. It noted:
• there was no suggestion that Mr C had communication or comprehension difficulties.
• there was no evidence he had difficulties with cognition, memory or hazard awareness.
• he had some anxiety with change and meeting new people and he was supported to travel to his new college but no indication of significant behavioural difficulties.
12. The Council upheld its original refusal. In the Reasoning section it said:
• The application was limited in its descriptions of the difficulties Mr C faced.
• The GP was unfamiliar with Mr C and had based the report on one meeting with his mother and the content contradicted the school history in the EHCP.
• There was insufficient and/or conflicting information to suggest very considerable psychological distress, very considerable difficulty with walking or serious risk of harm when walking.
13. Mr B then complained to us.

Analysis

14. I understand Mr B is unhappy that Mr C’s application for a blue badge was unsuccessful, but I am unable to identify any fault in the way the Council made its decision. It considered all the information Mr B provided with the application and considered each qualification criteria in the light of the information provided but concluded that insufficient evidence had been provided to show Mr C met the criteria.
15. It also offered an appeal and invited further evidence, which Mr B submitted. A different person considered the appeal and the additional information against the qualifying criteria but concluded Mr C did not meet the criteria based on the evidence provided. The assessment form shows that the assessor weighed the pieces of evidence and gave reasons for attaching more weight to some items than others. It also gave reasons for the refusal in its decision letter to Mr B.
16. Mr B may disagree with the decision, but I cannot find fault with the way it was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mr C.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman