Summary: The Council failed to properly consider the impact of Miss X’s disability before refusing her application for a Blue Badge. The Council should apologise, complete a fresh assessment, and pay Miss X £250.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly consider the impact of her disability when deciding if she was eligible for a Blue Badge.
2. As a result, Miss X says the Council wrongly refused her application and she continues to experience significant distress when travelling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 considered Miss X’s complaint.
6. I considered the documents the Council provided, including two appeal decisions and the notes of the original assessor.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Miss X 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

The Blue Badge Scheme

9. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge Scheme is to help disabled people with severe mobility problems access goods and services by allowing them or a carer to park near their destination. The scheme provides parking concessions for Blue Badge holders. Local authorities are responsible for the day to day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing whether people are eligible for the badge.
10. The DfT issues Guidance to councils for providing Blue Badges to disabled people with severe mobility problems. The guidance says that councils must ensure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation. There are two types of eligibility criteria. One is where a person is eligible without further assessment. The other is where the person is eligible subject to further assessment.
11. In 2019, the DfT issued new guidance for councils. The main change from previous guidance was the introduction of assessment criteria to help people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
12. To be eligible for a badge, those people who are eligible subject to further assessment must be more than two years old and fall within one or more of the following descriptions:

• drives a vehicle regularly, has a severe disability in both arms and is unable to operate, or has considerable difficulty in operating, all or some types of parking meter; or
• has been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring and substantial disability which causes them, during the course of a journey, to:
1. Be unable to walk;
2. Experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress; or
3. Be at risk of serious harm when walking; or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person. (The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) Regulations, 4(2)(f))

13. The disability experienced by the applicant must have endured for at least three years.
14. In respect of both physical disabilities or non-visible conditions, where a council cannot reach a view based on the applicants evidence, it would be expected to appoint an expert assessor. (The Blue Badge Scheme Local Authority Guidance, 4.27)
15. The term “expert assessor” has been widened to allow a wider range of medical/healthcare professionals to certify eligibility due to non-visible disabilities.  It removes the requirement for independence, in recognition that for non-visible disabilities especially, it may be that a professional with a close knowledge of the applicant’s case history could certify their disability for this purpose.
16. If applicants are unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may appeal by asking the Council to review the decision.

What happened

17. In November 2019, Miss X applied to the Council for a Blue Badge. She told the Council the impact of her mental health conditions meant she could not walk without experiencing psychological distress.
18. In January 2020, the Council assessed Miss X’s application. The assessor’s notes say the Council needed more information about how Miss X’s conditions affected her when making a journey.
19. Later that day, the Council asked Miss X’s former therapist to provide more information. The therapist declined as he had not seen Miss X since March 2019 and was not allowed to provide such information.
20. The assessor’s notes go on to say that none of the evidence provided met the criteria for a Blue Badge. The Council said that it could not get any more information and Miss X did “not appear to have any other professional involved.” It declined Miss X’s application.
21. Miss X wrote to the Council and asked for a review of the decision. Her letter provided more information about the impact of her mental health when outside, especially in open or crowded places.
22. In February 2020, the Council wrote to Miss X with the outcome of the review. It upheld the original decision. It said the reasons for this were:
• She had not provided any additional information from a health professional;
• The disability benefit Miss X receives does not contain an element which leads to an automatic award for a Blue Badge;
• Miss X travels accompanied by her godmother, and this coping strategy means she doesn’t need a badge; and
• Miss X’s employer should support her by providing a designated parking space close to the building.
23. The Council reviewed the decision again in April 2020, at Miss X’s request. The Council upheld its previous decision.
24. In September 2020, Miss X complained to the Ombudsman.

My Findings

25. The DfT guidance says that when it is not self-evident to a council from the information available whether the applicant meets the eligibility criteria for a Blue Badge, it should appoint an expert assessor.
26. The assessor sent Miss X an email to ask about other professionals supporting her. However, the Council decided to refuse the application the same day, before she replied. It did not get any more information about Miss X’s conditions before declining her application.
27. The Council’s records say it needed more information about the impact of
    Miss X’s conditions on her before it could decide if she was eligible for a Blue Badge. It asked her previous therapist, who could not provide the information. If it was not “self-evident” to the Council whether Miss X met the eligibility criteria it should have considered whether it needed to appoint an expert assessor.
28. There is no evidence the Council considered whether it needed to appoint an expert assessor or get more information from Miss X before deciding whether she was eligible for a Blue Badge. Given it had identified a need for more information, this is fault.
29. In her letter asking for a review, Miss X told the Council she had professional support paid for by her employer. The professional supporting her may have been able to provide the further information the Council said it needed. There is no evidence the Council asked for more information about Miss X’s current therapy before refusing Miss X’s application on review. This is fault.
30. In its review, the Council said Miss X was accompanied by her godmother when she travels. It said this coping strategy negates the impact of her conditions and so she doesn’t need a Blue Badge. However, Miss X says even accompanied, if she cannot park close to doors, she will go home. In addition, her godmother is an older person and Miss X needs help with even the smallest journeys, so this support is not always effective or practical.
31. The DfT guidance says the Council should be “satisfied that such difficulties cannot be managed through reasonable coping strategies.” However, it cautions councils to consider whether existing strategies are effective and whether a Blue Badge would itself be an effective coping strategy.
32. Had it given Miss X the chance to provide more information before declining the application, the Council could have reached an informed conclusion about whether being accompanied was an effective coping strategy. The Council failed to follow the DfT guidance in assessing existing coping strategies. This is fault.
33. As a result of the faults I have identified, the Council decided Miss X was not eligible for a Blue Badge without considering relevant information and without due regard to the DfT guidance. This calls into question the reliability of the decision and is an injustice to Miss X.

Agreed action

34. To remedy the injustice to Miss X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X in writing;
• Complete a fresh assessment, with a different assessor;
• Get information from Miss X’s current therapist or appoint an expert assessor, as relevant; and
• Pay Miss X £250.
35. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
36. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Remind relevant staff of the Department for Transport guidance about when an expert assessor may be necessary; and
• Remind relevant staff that the absence of the information needed to make a decision is not grounds to refuse an application.
37. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action is has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation. The Council is at fault. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman