Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly refused her application for a Disabled Person’s Parking (Blue) Badge. The Council failed to cross-check its existing records, but there is no evidence this would have affected the outcome of Miss X’s application. The Council reviewed its process for cross-checking existing information when considering Blue Badge applications. We were satisfied with the action the Council took, so we completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council wrongly refused her April 2020 application for a Disabled Person’s Parking Badge (Blue Badge) and her August 2020 appeal. Specifically, she says the company the Council uses to consider Blue Badge applications:
1. reached the wrong conclusions based on the evidence when Miss X appealed against the refusal;
2. failed to consider other evidence already available to the Council;
3. ignored evidence of her disability benefit claim; and
4. ignored further evidence Miss X sent after the Council refused her appeal.
2. Although the Council later approved her application, Miss X said this caused her four months of distress, worry and inconvenience. She wanted the Council to apologise, pay her a financial remedy and change the way it considers evidence in Blue Badge applications.

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)
6. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information provided by Miss X’s representative and the information the Council provided.
8. I also considered the relevant law and guidance.
9. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Blue Badge Scheme

10. 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. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing whether people are eligible for the badge.
11. 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. Some people are automatically eligible. Others are eligible ‘subject to further assessment’. These are people who:
• drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and cannot operate, or have considerable difficulty in operating, all, or some types of parking meter; or
• an expert assessor has certified as having an enduring and substantial disability which causes them, during a journey, to be unable to walk or experience very considerable difficulty while walking. This can include very considerable psychological distress.
12. An expert assessor is a suitably qualified person with the necessary expertise to assess whether someone meets the criteria for a Blue Badge because of their disability.
13. The guidance says applicants “need to show that, as a result of their enduring and substantial disability, they are unable to walk very far without experiencing severe difficulty; and that their inability to walk is affected to the extent that they would be unable to access goods and services unless allowed to park close to shops, public buildings, and other facilities.”
14. Councils will also “need to be satisfied that such difficulties cannot otherwise be managed through reasonable coping strategies.” The guidance gives the example of “where an applicant would only ever be accompanied by another person and that negates ‘very considerable’ difficulty, a badge would not help the applicant.”
15. For applications ‘subject to further assessment’ the guidance says councils should cross-check its own health and social care records and consider this evidence when deciding Blue Badge eligibility.

The Council’s administration of the Blue Badge scheme

16. The Council uses Company Z, to assess Blue Badge applications and provide expert assessors where necessary.
17. Where someone has a non-visible (‘hidden’) disability, Company Z has an assessment tool to help assessors consider the effects of the disability. The tool provides assessors with descriptions of activities to help the assessor when considering how much difficulty walking causes the applicant. Assessors can score each activity and the tool says the total score should be a guide for the assessor to decide whether to approve the application.
18. The Council’s policy says where it refuses someone’s Blue Badge application, they can appeal the decision within four weeks of the original decision. There is no provision in the policy for further appeals if an appeal is rejected.

What happened

19. Miss X has learning disabilities, limited mobility and suffers severe anxiety, including when travelling outside. She receives disability benefits (Personal Independence Payment) because of the difficulties caused by her disabilities.
20. Miss X applied for a Blue Badge in April 2020. She also sent the Council letters from her GP, educational psychologist and occupational therapist in support of her application.
21. Miss X was not automatically eligible for a Blue Badge, so the Council passed her application to Company Z for assessment by an expert assessor.
22. Company Z sent a form to Miss X’s GP, asking for more information about how Miss X’s disabilities affected her ability to travel. Miss X’s GP returned the completed form in early June 2020.
23. An expert assessor decided in late June 2020 that Miss X did not qualify for a Blue Badge. In their decision the assessor accepted Miss X had an enduring disability, but was not satisfied the evidence provided showed she had ‘very considerable difficulty whilst walking’. The assessor noted that Miss X could not travel alone and that, since she was always accompanied while travelling, this prevented her from experiencing very considerable psychological distress.
24. Miss X, with the help of a representative, appealed against the Council’s decision in late July / early August 2020. Miss X provided some older letters from her GP and a copy of her Education Health and Care plan setting out her needs.
25. In mid-August 2020, another expert assessor from Company Z considered Miss X’s appeal and the extra evidence she provided. The assessor also spoke to Miss X’s father and aunt by telephone. The assessor decided that while Miss X had a substantial and enduring disability, she was always accompanied while travelling outside and that the evidence did not say her anxiety was triggered by walking. The assessor noted the need for support when travelling was not, in itself, grounds for a Blue Badge.
26. In mid-September 2020, Miss X’s occupational therapist contacted Company Z and sent a further letter explaining the effects of Miss X’s disabilities in more detail. This letter explained Miss X’s severe anxiety symptoms while travelling, even when accompanied. Company Z then spoke with Miss X’s occupational therapist to get more information about the effects on Miss X.
27. In October 2020, Miss X complained to the Council that it had refused her application. The Council asked Company Z to reconsider the appeal, based on the new evidence from Miss X’s occupational therapist which it did in early November 2020, approving Miss X’s application.
28. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman, with the help of a representative, in December 2020.

Improvements made by the Council

29. In response to my draft decision, the Council reviewed its policy on cross-checking applications. The new policy says that, in future, Council systems should be checked for existing, relevant information for all Blue Badge applications.

My findings

30. It is not our role to decide whether Miss X should have a Blue Badge; that is the Council’s job. Our role is to assess whether the Council made its decision properly.
31. We expect decision makers to consider the evidence available to them and give clear reasons for their decision. We cannot normally question the conclusions or professional judgement of a decision maker where their decision was made without fault.

a) the expert assessors’ consideration of the application and appeal

32. When considering Miss X’s original application and her appeal, the assessment tools completed by the assessors show they each considered all the evidence provided by Miss X at the time.
33. In both cases, the assessors explained their reasons for reaching the view that while Miss X had an enduring and substantial disability, the evidence did not show she could not walk very far without experiencing severe difficulty.
34. I appreciate Miss X and her representative disagree with the assessors’ conclusions. However, I am satisfied there was no fault in how the assessors considered either Miss X’s application or her appeal.
35. Although the Council eventually accepted Miss X’s application for a Blue Badge, this was after Miss X’s occupational therapist provided more detailed evidence about her difficulties so the evidence available at the second appeal was materially different.

b) failure to consider other evidence

36. The Blue Badge guidance says councils should routinely cross-check existing health and social care records where these might contain evidence to help decide a Blue Badge application.
37. In its comments on Miss X’s complaint, Company Z says it understood it was not Council policy for Company Z to check existing Council records because of the time this would take. Instead, it understood the Council would do this before passing applications to Company Z.
38. The Council has confirmed that it did not cross-check its existing records in this case. Since Miss X had extensive contact with the Council’s social care team, I am satisfied this was fault.
39. However, I cannot say cross-checking this information would have made a difference to Miss X’s application. This is because:
• she provided her EHC plan (from the Council’s social care team) for the first appeal which was refused; and
• the Council awarded her Blue Badge based on new evidence from her occupational therapist, which was not part of those records.
40. There is no evidence the application or appeal decisions would have been different if the assessors had considered other, existing information the Council held about Miss X.

c) evidence of Miss X’s disability benefits

41. Miss X’s representatives said the assessors should have given more weight to the fact that Miss X received a disability benefit (Personal Independence Payment, PIP). They said that although Miss X‘s PIP award said she could not “follow the route of a familiar journey without another person”, the assessor should have considered why she could not do this and whether it was because of psychological distress.
42. The evidence available to the assessors about Miss X’s PIP only stated she could not “follow the route of a familiar journey without another person”. The PIP evidence did not contain any further explanation of how this decision had been reached.
43. The assessors were not at fault for failing to speculate or make assumptions about the reasons for Miss X’s PIP award.

d) ignoring evidence sent after Miss X’s appeal

44. Under the Council’s Blue Badge policy, there is only one appeal stage.
45. Since the Council received the new information from Miss X’s occupational therapist after it had decided her appeal, the Council’s policy did not require it to reconsider the decision again.
46. However, when Miss X complained to the Council, it asked Company Z to reconsider Miss X’s appeal, which it approved.
47. The evidence shows the Council treated this new information in line with its Blue Badge policy, so there was no fault.

Improvements made by the Council

48. I am satisfied the improvements the Council made in response to my draft decision are an adequate response to the faults I have identified. I have therefore not made further recommendations.

Final decision

49. I have completed my investigation and partially uphold Miss X’s complaint. The Council’s failure to cross-check Council records when considering Miss X’s Blue Badge application was fault. Although this did not cause an injustice to Miss X, the Council has reviewed its processes to prevent possible injustice to others in future.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman