Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his appeal after it rejected his application for a Blue Badge and did not provided an adequate reason for the rejection. He said the Council’s actions have negatively affected his ability to leave the house and put him to unnecessary time and trouble. There was no fault in the Council’s management of Mr X’s Blue Badge appeal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly rejected his appeal for a Blue Badge after his application was rejected and failed to provide adequate reasons for the rejection.
2. He said the Council’s actions caused him stress and upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 contacted Mr X and discussed his view of the complaint.
6. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes email correspondence shared between Mr X and the Council and the Council’s reassessment and appeal letters.
7. I wrote to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and gave them the opportunity to comment before I made the final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Blue Badge scheme

8. The Department for Transport (Dft) has issued guidance to councils for providing Blue Badges. The Blue Badge scheme entitles drivers or passengers with mobility problems to park nearer to their destination.
9. To qualify for a Blue Badge, an applicant must be assessed by their council as either ‘eligible without further assessment’ or ‘eligible subject to further assessment’.
10. Adults who receive Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and are awarded a certain number of points in the appropriate PIP category, are automatically entitled to a Blue Badge without further assessment.
11. Other people who do not have the necessary points are classed ‘eligible subject to further assessment’. This means the council will assess them to decide if they meet the requirements for a Blue Badge.
12. From 30 August 2019, people with hidden disabilities such as anxiety disorders or brain injuries can apply for a Blue Badge.
13. It is up to the relevant council to decide if an applicant meets the eligibility criteria for a Blue Badge.
14. The DfT strongly recommends that councils establish an internal appeals procedure for unsuccessful applicants and clearly signpost this in its decision letter. Councils should also provide unsuccessful applicants with a detailed written explanation.

What happened

Background

15. Mr X has suffered with anxiety and depression for several years. He also has a hearing impairment and is currently waiting for surgery on his eye.
16. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge in 2019. The Council rejected Mr X’s application stating he did not have sufficient PIP points.
17. Mr X brought this complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found the Council at fault for failing to carry out a further assessment to determine Mr X’s eligibility for a Blue Badge.
18. The Ombudsman instructed the Council to:
• review its procedures to ensure it assesses Blue Badge applicants using both tests for eligibility in line with the legislation
• implement an appeals procedure
• reconsider Mr X’s Blue Badge application in light of the above.

Mr X’s complaint

19. In mid-May 2020 the Council wrote to Mr X and advised it had re-considered the evidence he had provided in support of his Blue Badge application. The Council said, “You have not supplied any further information to demonstrate how considerable psychological distress, caused by an enduring and substantial disability would cause a serious risk of harm, or how a lack of situational awareness presents a risk to you and others.”
20. The Council told Mr X if he remained unhappy with the decision, he could appeal it. The Council invited Mr X to provide further medical evidence in support of his application.
21. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. He said he was unable to leave the house and was reliant on family members for transport due to his hearing and vision problems. He also said his anxiety and depression was affected by the Council’s decision not to give him a Blue Badge.
22. In early June 2020, the Council wrote to Mr X to advise a senior officer had considered Mr X’s appeal and evidence.
23. The Council said, “to qualify for a Blue Badge you must demonstrate you suffer from considerable psychological distress, caused by an enduring and substantial condition that creates a serious risk of harm to you or others, or a lack of situational awareness… based on the information we have received to date, the threshold for hidden disabilities has not been met so your application has been refused.” The Council told Mr X he could raise a complaint if he was unhappy with its decision.
24. In late June 2020 Mr X’s GP sent the Council a letter outlining Mr X’s health conditions. He said Mr X had a history of anxiety and depression as well as hearing and vision impairments. The GP said Mr X was at risk when driving as he could not see properly or hear traffic.
25. The Council responded to Mr X in early August 2020. It confirmed it had considered the information provided by Mr X’s GP and maintained he had not met the criteria to receive a Blue Badge. The Council said the GP had not indicated that Mr X was receiving treatment for anxiety or depression. The Council also acknowledged the GP’s information showing Mr X was awaiting surgery for his eye but said this did not meet the criteria for a Blue Badge because it was not a permanent condition. The Council advised Mr X that he could refer his complaint to the Ombudsman if he was unhappy with the decision.
26. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman shortly after this.

Findings

27. Mr X remains unhappy with the Council’s decision to turn down his appeal. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether Mr X should have a Blue Badge; that is the Council’s job. It is the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the Council made the decision properly. Following the Ombudsman’s decision on Mr X’s previous complaint, the Council implemented an appeals procedure and reviewed Mr X’s application again.
28. In line with the guidance, the Council considered whether Mr X’s disability met the eligibility criteria for applicants who do not have sufficient PIP points and decided he did not. The Council correctly followed the guidance. The Council gave Mr X the opportunity to provide further evidence from his GP in support of his application. The Council maintained its decision and explained the rationale behind its decision. The Council has not acted with fault in the way it made its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

29. The Council was not at fault in how it managed Mr X’s application and appeal for a Blue Badge. I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman