Summary: There was fault in how the Council considered a Blue Badge application. The Council had already addressed the injustice this caused to the complainant, by offering her a face-to-face mobility assessment, but it has now also agreed to review other recent decisions it has made, to determine whether other applications were affected by the same fault.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Miss L.
2. Miss L complains the Council refused to renew her Blue Badge. She considers the Council did not properly consider her renewal application.

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. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I reviewed Miss L’s application and appeal, and the Council’s consideration of each. I also made enquiries with the Council to clarify aspects of its application process.

Back to top

What I found

7. Miss L suffers from health conditions which impair her mobility. The Council had previously granted her a Blue Badge because of this. In June 2021, it received and processed her application to renew the badge.
8. The Council undertook a ‘desk based’ assessment of Miss L’s application. This involves making a decision only on the strength of the application form and any supporting documents the applicant has submitted, without seeing or assessing them face-to-face.
9. On 16 July, the Council wrote to Miss L refusing her application. It said this was because she had not submitted adequate supporting information to enable it to make a decision. The Council explained Miss L now had 60 days to appeal its decision, if she wished.
10. Miss L submitted a letter of appeal on 30 July. She described her conditions in some more detail, explained how they impair her mobility and the benefit she derived from a Blue Badge.
11. The Council wrote to Miss L again on 27 September. It explained it was still not satisfied she had submitted adequate evidence to support her application, and rejected it again. It said Miss L could now approach the Ombudsman if she was dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of her application.
12. Miss L complained to the Ombudsman on 25 October.

Back to top

Legislative background

13. The Department for Transport has issued revised guidance (August 2019) to councils when providing blue badges to disabled people with severe mobility problems. The guidance provides a structured functional mobility assessment.
14. The guidance sets out two types of eligibility criteria for issuing blue badges, eligible without further assessment; and eligible subject to further assessment. The applicable guidance in this case is the latter.
15. To qualify under these criteria, an applicant 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:
• be unable to walk;
• experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress; or
• be at risk of serious harm when walking; or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person.

16. The disability experienced by the applicant must have endured for at least three years. In respect of both physical disabilities or non-visible conditions, or where a council cannot reach a view based on the applicant’s evidence, it would be expected to appoint an expert assessor.
17. The guidance sets out several factors that are relevant in deciding whether an applicant meets the criteria for a badge:

• excessive pain;
• breathlessness;
• distance;
• speed;
• length of time they are able to walk for;
• manner in which they walk;
• use of walking aids;
• outdoor walking ability;
• psychological distress;
• danger to applicant’s life/serious deterioration in their health;
• risk of serious harm to self/others.

18. There are specific considerations under each of these categories.

Back to top

Analysis

19. The Council’s process for considering applications from people who do not automatically qualify for a Blue Badge is to complete a ‘desk based assessment’. This involves scoring their application against a points matrix, with points being awarded according to the severity of different aspects of mobility impairment. The total number of points then determines whether the application should be granted (25 points or more), referred for further assessment (between 12 and 24 points), or refused (fewer than 12 points).
20. In Miss L’s case, the Council completed a desk based assessment. However, having reviewed the assessment form, I am not satisfied it was completed properly – and in fact it is quite difficult to understand.
21. For example, in the first section of the form, the assessor has recorded Miss L had no “permanent & substantial disability” significant affecting her ability to walk, and awarded her no points for this.
22. However, later in the same section, the assessor awarded Miss L points because she was not recovering or due to receive surgery for her condition, and because it was uncertain whether it would improve in the next three years.
23. This is confusing for two reasons. First, the assessor contradicted their own assertion Miss L had no such condition. Second, if Miss L truly did not suffer from a permanent and substantial disability affecting her ability to walk, then as I understand it she would not have been eligible for a Blue Badge anyway, regardless of anything else. So, if this is what the assessor believed, it does not make sense to then have continued with the assessment.
24. More important, though, is that this is only section of the points matrix which the assessor actually completed. The rest is entirely blank. This is despite the fact that, in her application form, Miss L mentioned several of the criteria which score points there – such as finding it painful to walk, using a walking aid and taking prescription medication.
25. The assessor also did not award Miss L a total number of points at the end of the matrix.
26. I do note the assessor included a detailed comment in the ‘clinical reasoning’ section of the form, in which they explained that they “sympathise[d]” with Miss L’s condition, but could not grant the application without further medical evidence to demonstrate the “frequency and severity” of her conditions.
27. The Government guidance on Blue Badges encourages councils to obtain medical evidence in support of applications, and so the assessor’s comment appears to be in line with this. However, I have a significant concern the assessor has focussed exclusively on the clinical technicalities of Miss L’s conditions and her treatment, and given little to no thought to how they actually affect her mobility – which is the critical question here. The failure to properly complete the points matrix would appear to bear this concern out.
28. It is not for me to make my own decision on Miss L’s Blue Badge application; my role is instead to review the Council’s administration of the application and the process it used to decide it. I cannot, therefore, decide whether Miss L should have been granted a badge, or referred for further assessment.
29. But for the reasons given, I am not satisfied the Council considered the application properly during the desk based assessment. This, therefore, is fault. The uncertainty about what would have happened if the assessment had been completed properly represents an injustice to Miss L.
30. I asked the Council to comment on this when I made enquiries with it. It responded to agree the desk based assessment had not been completed as it should have been, and said it would now contact Miss L to offer her a mobility assessment.
31. This is positive, and I consider this should serve to address the injustice to Miss L here. I make no further recommendations in this respect.
32. However, I remain concerned this fault may not be limited to Miss L’s case, and that there may be other applicants who have suffered a similar injustice. I consider the Council should therefore take steps to review its recent Blue Badge decisions, and, where appropriate, reconsider applications which it rejected, where this may have been because of a similar fault to that I have found here.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to conduct a review of a sample of its Blue Badge decisions over the past 12 months. The review should seek to identify if there has been a similar, systematic fault with its desk based assessments of applications, and if so, how many decisions this has likely affected. The Council should then decide an action plan on the best way to resolve the injustice to the affected applicants.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman