Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her daughter, Miss Y about the Council’s decision not to renew Miss Y’s Blue Badge. Mrs X says she spent a lot of time appealing the decision and the Council’s actions caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience. We have found fault by the Council in this matter and the Council has agreed a remedy to address the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains on behalf of her daughter, Miss Y about the Council’s decision not to renew Miss Y’s Blue Badge. Mrs X says Miss Y had previously been granted a Blue Badge due to her medical condition, and that this medical condition has not changed.
2. Mrs X says she has spent a lot of time appealing the decision, and the Council’s actions have caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience. Mrs X would like the Council to renew Miss Y’s Blue Badge.

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. 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)
5. 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

6. I have discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered the information she provided.
7. I have made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
8. Mrs X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue Badge scheme guidance

9. The Blue Badge (Disabled Persons’ Parking) Scheme was introduced in 1971 under Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (‘the 1970 Act’).
10. The aim of the scheme is to help disabled people with severe mobility problems to access goods and services, by allowing them to park close to their destination. The scheme is open to eligible disabled people irrespective of whether they are travelling as a driver or as a passenger.
11. In August 2019, the Department for Transport issued new Blue Badge scheme local authority guidance (‘the Guidance’). This introduced new eligibility criteria for people with non-visible (hidden) disabilities. The new criteria extended eligibility to people who:

• cannot undertake a journey without there being a risk of serious harm to their health or safety or that of any other person (such as young children with autism);
• cannot undertake a journey without it causing them very considerable psychological distress; and
• have very considerable difficulty when walking (both the physical act and experience of walking).

12. An individual’s eligibility for a Blue Badge is considered in terms of being ‘eligible without further assessment’ or ‘eligible subject to further assessment’.
13. The criteria for being eligible subject to further assessment applies to those who may be described as:

• “a person who has been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring and substantial disability which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk, experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress”. ‘Enduring’ means the disability is expected to last three years as most Blue Badges must be issued for three years; and
• “in addition, they may be at risk of serious harm when walking – or pose when walking, a risk of serious harm to another person”.

14. If it is not evident to a council based on the information available whether the applicant falls within these descriptors, then it should make a referral to an expert assessor for certification. The Guidance anticipates that appointing an expert assessor would be by exception. This is because councils would reasonably expect most applicants to show a health or social care history consistent with having an enduring and substantial disability causing them very considerable difficulty when walking between a vehicle and their destination.
15. When making its decision on eligibility, councils should consider any conditions that affect the applicant’s mobility. The Guidance says councils should consider the impact of hidden disabilities on an applicant’s ability to walk during their journey to reach their destination. The extent of the impact experienced by the applicant must be such that it results in “very considerable difficulties or a risk of serious harm to themselves or others, whilst walking during the course of a journey”. To qualify, the applicant must show their hidden disability would prevent them accessing goods and services unless they could park close to shops and public buildings. (paragraph 4.85 of the Guidance)
16. A local authority may refuse to issue a Blue Badge if the applicant fails to provide the local authority with adequate evidence of their eligibility. The Guidance recommends councils provide clear and detailed feedback to applicants on the reasons for its refusal.

What happened

17. Miss Y lives with her mother, Mrs X. Mrs X says the Council granted Miss Y a Blue Badge about 12 years ago based on a range of conditions and health issues, including anxiety.
18. In June 2020, Mrs X called the Council to discuss renewing Miss Y’s Blue Badge. Mrs X said she was worried that attending a renewal assessment may cause anxiety for Miss Y, particularly because of the Covid19 pandemic. The Council said it was not conducting face-to-face assessments because of the pandemic. It said it could carry out a telephone assessment to review Miss Y’s application under the criteria of non-visible disabilities.
19. In July 2020, the Council completed a Blue Badge renewal application with Mrs X over the telephone. Mrs X said Miss Y’s medical condition is such that she needs to be supervised when taking a journey. She said Miss Y is at significant risk of harm when walking to reach her destination, particularly near vehicles and traffic.
20. The Council wrote to Mrs X and asked for further information in support of Miss Y’s application. It sent a form, reference BBNV2, (the form) to Mrs X so she could provide more details and an explanation as to the nature, severity and impact of Miss Y’s disability.
21. Miss Y’s social worker helped Mrs X to complete the form.
22. In August 2020, the Council carried out a desktop assessment of Miss Y’s application. Miss Y was not required to attend a face-to-face meeting.
23. Shortly after the assessment, the Council wrote to Mrs X to tell her it had refused Miss Y’s application. It said Miss Y was not eligible under the criteria for non-visible disabilities and there was no evidence of considerable distress when walking or undertaking a journey.
24. A few days later, Mrs X called the Council. She said she thought she had wrongly applied under the hidden disability category. She said Miss Y received Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and had held a Blue Badge for several years. The Council advised Mrs X to appeal its decision.

Miss Y’s appeal

25. Mrs X appealed to the Council on behalf of Miss Y in August 2020. She said she wrongly assumed Miss Y’s application had been made under the “non-visible” criteria because of the current inability to meet the Council in a face-to-face assessment. Mrs X says she gave the Council evidence of Miss Y’s PIP entitlement as part of her appeal.
26. The Council wrote to Miss Y on 21 August 2020 to say it was enclosing another copy of the form for Mrs X to complete. It said the form was required as part of Miss Y’s appeal.
27. Miss Y’s Blue Badge expired on 21 August 2020.
28. Mrs X called the Council a few days later. She says the Council did not enclose another copy of the form with its letter and that during this call, the Council asked her to provide evidence of Miss Y’s PIP.
29. On 10 September 2020, the Council considered Miss Y’s appeal and completed another desktop assessment. It considered the information provided by Mrs X, including that provided on the form, but noted that some of the form provided as part of the application was missing.
30. On 16 September 2020, the Council wrote to Miss Y with its decision. It said it upheld its original decision that Miss Y was not eligible for a Blue Badge and that the form did not show the functional impact of Miss Y’s disability.
31. Mrs X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s decision and brought her complaint to us.

Analysis

32. The Council confirmed it moved face-to-face assessments for visible, (physical) disabilities to telephone appointments because of the Covid19 pandemic. It says it also completed desktop assessments for non-visible (hidden) disabilities and this is the reason it carried out a desktop assessment for Miss Y.
33. I have seen a transcript of a telephone call between Mrs X and the Council. During the call, Mrs X told the Council about Miss Y’s medical conditions but said the main issue for Miss Y is anxiety. The advisor recommended the application for renewal under the non-visible criteria based on Miss Y’s anxiety.
34. The Council says desktop assessments are assigned to expert assessors with relevant specialisms. It says the assessors review the application and supporting evidence and may decide to contact the applicant by telephone. I am satisfied the assessor in this case reviewed the information provided by Mrs X on behalf of Miss Y, including the information provided on the form.
35. The assessment notes from the appeal and the Council’s decision letter dated 16 September 2020 show the assessor identified that although the form had been completed, some pages were missing. The Council says the missing pages of the form contained an options matrix used by the applicant to show the severity and frequency of their challenges.
36. The Council says it did not initially send the complete form to Mrs X because of a printing error. Having identified this error, and further to our enquiries, the Council sent a complete form to Mrs X so that it could reassess Miss Y’s application. The Council has since completed its reassessment and decided Miss Y is eligible for a Blue Badge. The Council issued Miss Y with a Blue Badge in April 2021.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council?

37. The Council’s letter of 21 August 2020 says the form was required as part of the appeal process. Also, in its decision letter of 16 September 2020, the Council refers to a lack of information about the functional impact of Miss Y’s conditions as part of the reason her application was unsuccessful.
38. The Council has acknowledged it did not send a complete form to Miss Y as part of the renewal process. This is fault because Miss Y was not asked all the questions considered necessary to accurately decide eligibility. The assessment process was therefore flawed, and Miss Y’s application was disadvantaged as a result.

Injustice caused by the Council’s error

39. Having identified fault, I must consider if this caused a significant injustice.
40. Mrs X says the Council’s actions caused her unnecessary stress and anxiety. She says she needs to take Miss Y with her when she goes shopping but must leave her in the car while Mrs X goes into the shop. She says when Miss Y previously had a Blue Badge, she could park in a disabled parking space in front of the window at her local shops. She says this meant she could monitor Miss Y’s wellbeing in the car while she did the shopping. However, Mrs X says that when the Blue Badge expired in August 2020, she had to park further away and was not able to monitor Miss Y while shopping.
41. Mrs X also says she spent a lot of time and trouble dealing with the appeals process. The time and trouble taken, particularly when the Council did not provide Mrs X with a complete copy of the form, and the stress and anxiety previously mentioned, caused Mrs X significant injustice.
42. I acknowledge the Council says the issue of sending an incomplete form to Mrs X was caused by a printing error, and it is positive the Council identified this during the investigation. It is also positive that having identified this error, the Council carried out a combined reassessment to consider Miss Y’s range of conditions and health issues. However, I do not consider this remedy alone adequately addresses the injustice identified.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. To address the injustice arising from the fault identified, the Council agreed to take the following action:

• Provide Mrs X with an apology. The Council says it apologised to Mrs X in April 2021, after its decision to reissue Miss Y with a Blue Badge;
• Complete the reassessment of Miss Y’s Blue Badge appeal. The Council has confirmed this action was completed in April 2021;
• Make a payment of £100 to Mrs X (to be used for the benefit of Miss Y) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by being without a Blue Badge since August 2020. This payment should be paid to Mrs X within four weeks of the final decision;
• Make a payment of £100 to Mrs X within four weeks of the final decision, to recognise the time and trouble taken.

The Council is required to provide us with evidence it has complied with each of the agreed actions.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have found fault in the Council’s actions and the Council has agreed a remedy to address the injustice caused. I have concluded my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman