Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. The Council failed to properly consider Ms X’s application for a blue badge.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to properly consider her application for a blue badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 discussed it with Ms X
• considered the correspondence between Ms X and the Council, including the Council’s response to the complaint
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the responses
• taken account of relevant legislation
• offered Ms X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document, and considered the comments made.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

5. 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.
6. The DfT updated its guidance in August 2019 to ensure that difficulties experienced by people with non-visible disabilities are considered by councils when determining the eligibility for blue badges. The revisions to the eligibility criteria mean that councils can now consider a person’s difficulty whilst walking, and during the course of a journey, rather than solely their ability to walk or difficulties caused only by the physical act of walking.
7. To qualify for a blue badge, an applicant must be assessed by their council as either ‘eligible without further assessment’, previously known as automatic eligibility, or ‘eligible subject to further assessment’, previously known as discretionary.
8. The guidance says that people may be issued with a badge, following further assessment, if they are:

• “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”
• “in addition, they may be at risk of serious harm when walking - or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person”

9. If the Council cannot determine whether the applicant falls into the category as described above, it can make a referral to an expert assessor for ‘certification’. The Council is not required to seek expert assessment in all cases.
10. If the Council decides not to issue a blue badge, the regulations say it must notify the applicant, in writing, of the reasons for refusal. The DfT ‘strongly recommends’ that every applicant is given a ‘detailed explanation’ of the grounds for refusal. Councils should not simply state in their refusal letter that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria.

What happened

11. Ms X applied for a blue badge in August 2020 and cited her mental health as the reason. She has a long-term mental health condition and has been receiving mental health support since 2012. The Council refused the application in September 2020.
12. Ms X submitted an appeal, which the Council rejected. Ms X says the Council did not explain why her specific condition did not meet the criteria.
13. Following our enquiries to the Council it completed a review of Ms X’s application. and said “…it is clear that there has been an error in this case”. The Council had not given due consideration to Ms X’s non-visible disability. Its assessment focused on her mobility as opposed to her mental health.
14. The Council has apologised for the error and for any upset and inconvenience caused to Ms X. It intends to send Ms X a form for her support worker to complete to evidence her mental health issues.

Agreed action

15. The Council will within four weeks of the final decision:

• provide Ms X with a written apology for the error in assessing her application
• make a payment of £150 in acknowledgement of the time and trouble Ms X has been put to pursuing the complaint.
• ensure Ms X receives the relevant form to give to her support worker and reassess her application when it receives the completed document.

16. Within eight weeks of the final decision, the Council should:

• consider training for its blue badge decision makers regarding the requirements of the DfT guidance, particularly regarding the assessment of those with ‘hidden’ disabilities.
• provide evidence of all the above to this office.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Council acknowledges it failed to properly consider Ms X’s application for a blue badge.
18. The above recommendations are a suitable way to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X.
19. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman