Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Mrs X’s application for a blue badge because it failed to record the reasoning for its decisions and failed to undertake a mobility assessment.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has 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 all the information provided by Mrs X together with the Council’s response to the complaint and information provided by the Council to this office. Both Mrs X and the Council have been provided with a draft of this document and invited to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

5. The Blue Badge scheme is to help disabled people with severe mobility problems access goods and services by allowing them to park near their destination. The scheme provides parking concessions for blue badge holders. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing whether people are eligible for a badge
6. The guidance says that people who can walk 80 metres and do not demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking are not eligible for a badge. Councils should take into account factors such as pain, speed, balance, gait and shortness of breath when assessing if someone can walk 80 metres. The guidance says that people who walk slowly will not be eligible if that is the only qualifying factor.
7. Having a certain medical condition does not in itself qualify an applicant for a badge. Rather, it is the effect of the condition or disability on the applicant’s ability to walk that is assessed.
8. New rules came into force on 30 August 2019. These are designed to make it easier for people with problems that are not exclusively linked to the physical act of walking to qualify for a badge.

Key facts

9. Mrs X has complex medical conditions and mental health difficulties. She applied to the Council for a blue badge in June 2021.
10. A travel officer triaged the application on 9 August 2021 and referred the application onto a senior occupational therapist (OT).
11. The OT telephoned Mrs X to gather information and then conducted a desk-based assessment on 11 August 2021. She concluded there was “…no evidence of a severe walking impairment or severe psychological distress related to the journey between the vehicle and destination of such a degree to meet the high threshold required for issue of badge”. The Council wrote to Mrs X to inform her the application has been refused.
12. Mrs X submitted an appeal in September 2021 and attached additional supporting information. She received no response, so she contacted the Council again on 30 December 2021. She was told the additional documents had not been received. Mrs X says chasing the Council increased her anxiety.
13. Mrs X says she has email confirmation that the documents had been sent. She sent the documents to the Council again on 7 January 2022. She received notification on the 11 January 2022 that her appeal had been refused.
14. Mrs X does not believe her application has been properly considered.
15. The Council’s records show an OT reviewed the information and concluded it was not new information, and that she considered the original decision to be correct. She recorded, she did not doubt Mrs X experienced “…difficulties these seem to be unrelated to the distance between her vehicle and her destination”.
16. Mrs X submitted a second appeal request. The Council responded in writing on 11 January 2022. The author of the letter apologised for the delay in responding and said this was due to the festive period and officer’s sick leave. The officer went on to say a panel of senior managers had reviewed the application and supporting information and upheld the original decision. The officer said “…these managers have an excellent understanding of the eligibility rules and one member of the panel has a registered disability”.

Analysis

17. It is not my role to decide whether Mrs X is eligible for a blue badge or give a view about the degree to which she meets the relevant criteria. My role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process in coming to a decision.
18. In this case I am not persuaded the application has been properly assessed Mrs X.
19. There are numerous comments from officers saying Mrs X does not qualify for a blue badge, but little by way of reasoning. I am unable to say that the hidden disability element has been properly considered.
20. Conclusions about Mrs X’s ability to walk between her vehicle and her destination were taken without a mobility assessment. Given Mrs X’s reference to physical problems and vertigo a mobility assessment would have been appropriate.
21. The Guidance says mobility assessments are good practice where decisions on eligibility may be unclear. It says:

“… whilst desk-based assessments have a role as a filtering mechanism to identify applicants who are clearly eligible or clearly ineligible for a badge, they cannot be successfully used as the sole means of determining all applicants' eligibility for a badge”.

22. In its final complaint response letter, the author acknowledged delay and apologised. The officer reiterated the Council’s view that Mrs X did not meet the eligibility criteria and went onto say managers had an excellent understanding of the blue badge eligibility rules, not least because one officer has a disability. This comment is inappropriate and insensitive. Just because an officer has a disability does not mean they should assume they understand the impact of Mrs X’s disability on her life or her mobility. Neither does it make the officer better placed to make decisions about other people’s eligibility for a blue badge. Each person’s is situation is different and should be judged on its own merit.

Back to top

Agreed action

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

• apologise the shortcomings identified above
• arrange a mobility assessment and review Mrs X’s application
• provide notes of decision making
• provide evidence of the above to this office

Back to top

Final decision

24. The Council failed to properly consider Mrs X’s application for a blue badge because it failed to record the reasoning for its decision and failed to undertake a mobility assessment.
25. The above recommendations are a suitable way to settle the complaint.
26. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman