Summary: Ms B complained about the Council’s decision not to award her daughter, Ms C, a blue badge. We found no fault with the way the Council considered Ms C’s application. But the Council’s decision letter failed to provide reasons why it rejected the application causing Ms C distress and frustration. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and remind officers that decision letters must contain enough detail for applicants to understand why they were not awarded a blue badge.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains about the Council’s decision not to award her daughter, Ms C, a blue badge. She says this will make it difficult for Ms C to attend university as only blue badge holders can park on campus. Ms C has a hidden disability which means she finds it difficult to walk alone and does not feel comfortable parking on the street.

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 read Ms B’s complaint and considered the Council’s assessment of the application and the medical information provided by Ms C. I also considered the guidance referred to below.
5. Ms 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

Legal and administrative background

Department for Transport (DfT) blue badge scheme local authority guidance

6. The Blue Badge (Disabled Persons’ Parking) Scheme is to help people with severe mobility problems caused by visible and non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities to access goods and services, by allowing them to park close to their destination.
7. The guidance says councils should ask the applicant to provide detailed information about their condition and how it causes them to:
• be unable to walk;
• experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress;
• be at risk of serious harm when walking or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person.
8. The guidance says the applicant must demonstrate that their difficulties mean they cannot access goods and services. Councils must be satisfied that any difficulties cannot be managed through reasonable coping strategies.
9. A council may refuse to issue a Blue Badge if the applicant fails to provide adequate evidence of their eligibility.
10. Where a council refuses an application, it must let the applicant know in writing the reasons for this. The DfT strongly recommends that the applicant should be given a detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal.

Key facts

11. Ms C applied for a blue badge in May 2020. She explained that she has autism and suffers from anxiety which is heightened when going out and about especially on her own, either walking or using public transport.
12. The Council completed a desktop assessment in July 2020. The assessor noted that Ms C reported anxiety and hypervigilance when out. She viewed her car as a safe place and telephoned her parents for verbal support as a coping strategy. The assessor noted that Ms C’s difficulties had been mitigated by learning to drive and her feelings would return if she could not use her car. She also noted medical evidence referred to Ms C accessing the community independently, going to parties with college friends and the cinema with her boyfriend.
13. The Council refused the application and sent a decision to Ms C the same day. It confirmed the application had been considered in accordance with the latest DfT guidance and the legislation relating to hidden disabilities. However, it did not explain the reasons why Ms C’s application had been refused.
14. Ms C appealed against the decision arguing that she met the following criteria: “experiencing very severe or overwhelming anxiety (e.g. through hypervigilance)” and “experiencing an overwhelming sense of fear of public/open/busy spaces”. She also confirmed she was receiving medication for anxiety.
15. The Council completed a second desktop assessment in August 2020. The assessor took account of Ms B’s arguments and referred to her school report from 2017 and a letter from the Community Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) from January 2019. She found Ms C was able to access the community in a meaningful way without a blue badge: she previously worked in a busy shopping environment four days a week; went to parties; and attended the cinema with her boyfriend. Ms C had also been discharged from CAMHS. The assessor concluded the severity of Ms C’s condition did not meet the criteria set out in the guidance. She sent an email to Ms C confirming this but provided no reasons for the decision. The email simply stated, “After full and careful consideration of your application and the further supporting evidence provided as part of your review, we regret to advise that the decision to not issue a blue badge has been upheld”.
16. Ms B complained to the Council on her daughter’s behalf. The Council responded explaining that Ms C’s application had been assessed against current guidance and legislation. It referred to the guidance that councils must be satisfied any difficulties cannot be managed through reasonable coping strategies. It explained it was satisfied Ms C could access the community independently with support from Ms B or others when difficulties arose. So, her level of need was not sufficient to award a blue badge.
17. Although Ms B’s complaint was not upheld, the Council agreed to offer Ms C a face-to-face assessment to observe the functional impact of her conditions on her well-being and mobility.
18. A face-to-face assessment was carried out in August 2020. The assessor confirmed Mr C’s conditions and medication and what treatment she was currently receiving. She observed that Ms C was hypervigilant about her surroundings when walking but appeared to gain reassurance from her mother’s presence. Ms C explained she could make car journeys alone but was afraid of walking alone. She said a key coping strategy when she was alone was to talk to her mother or a friend on the telephone from when she left the car to the front door/meeting place.
19. The assessor noted Ms C was due to start university in September and would live on campus. Ms B explained a blue badge would allow her to park on the campus rather than needing to use on-street parking. The assessor noted the university had made adaptations to make the transition easier for Ms C including allocating a flat close to the lecture theatre, putting in place mentor support, and setting up online deliveries for shopping. The assessor noted it was anticipated that Ms C would not go off the campus independently, but it was hoped she would make friends and access the community and other social activities on campus. The assessor also considered medical evidence submitted by Ms C including a letter from CAMHS, consultant neurologist and her GP.
20. The outcome of the assessment was that a blue badge was declined. The assessor concluded Ms C’s physical and mental health conditions were not severe enough to meet the criteria to allocate a badge. She found the university had provided robust support to allow Ms C to manage her mental health and that her mental health conditions were not substantial or enduring because she had been able to learn techniques to help manage her anxiety. She stated that Ms C did not demonstrate overwhelming psychological distress during the assessment or that she is a risk to herself or others.
21. Following the assessment, the Council wrote to Ms C advising her that the decision not to issue a blue badge had been upheld. However, no reasons were given.
22. Mrs B complained to the Ombudsman on Ms C’s behalf.

Analysis

23. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and it is not my role to decide if Ms C qualifies for a blue badge. I can only consider whether the Council assessed her application correctly. We cannot criticise a council where officers have followed the correct procedures and reached a reasoned decision.
24. The Council assessed the application under the hidden disability rules. It considered the information on the application form and the medical information provided by Ms C. It also completed a face-to-face assessment. The Council considered the difficulties Ms C experienced together with the guidance which says it should not issue a badge if the difficulties can be reduced through coping strategies. Having considered Ms C’s coping mechanisms and the support put in place by the University, the Council decided Ms C did not meet the criteria.
25. I am satisfied the Council considered all relevant issues, information and guidance when reaching its decision. In the absence of administrative fault, there are no grounds to question its decision.
26. However, I consider the Council was at fault because the decisions sent to Ms C failed to provide a detailed explanation of why it had refused a blue badge. The DfT says applicants who are 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”. We expect councils to provide a clear explanation of the reasons why an application has been refused in the decision letter. The Council’s failure to do this was fault and caused Ms C distress and frustration. However, this does not call into question its decision to refuse a blue badge because the reasons for the decision are properly set out in the written assessments.

Agreed action

27. The Council has agreed that, within one month, it will:
• apologise to Ms C for the fault identified;
• issue a reminder to officers that decision letters must provide enough detail for applicants to understand why they were not awarded a blue badge; and
• change the wording used in its standard letters to better inform applicants of the reasons for refusal.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I find the Council was at fault in failing to properly explain to Ms C the reasons for its decisions.
29. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman