Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not properly processed her application for the renewal of a blue badge. We have found some fault with the Council’s policy, but this did not cause Mrs X personal injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to prevent recurrence of the fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has not properly processed her application for the renewal of a blue badge. Specifically, Mrs X complains about observations carried out before and after the formal assessment.
2. Mrs X says she has not had a blue badge for over a year, and this has affected her quality of life. Mrs X wants the Council to review its decision and issue her with a 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 investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 considered:

• Mrs X’s complaint and the information she provided;
• documents provided by the Council in response to my enquiries; and
• relevant law and guidance.

7. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Some councils have blue badge schemes which help people with severe mobility problems or hidden disabilities to access goods and services, by allowing them to park closer to their destination. The Department for Transport has issued guidance for councils who run blue badge schemes.
9. The guidance sets out two types of eligibility criteria for issuing blue badges: “Eligible without further assessment” and “Eligible subject to further assessment.”
10. The criteria for being eligible subject to further assessment is:

• a person who drives regularly, has a severe disability on both arms and is unable to operate, or has considerable difficulty in operating, all or some types of parking meter;
• 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, or experiences very considerable difficulty whilst walking, including very considerable psychological distress; 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.

11. The guidance says assessors should also consider applicants who experience serious difficulty in walking due to non-visible (hidden) conditions. Applicants with these conditions may suffer considerable psychological distress or pose a risk to themselves or others when walking.
12. If an application is refused, the guidance strongly recommends the assessor gives the person applying a detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal. It says it is not acceptable to simply say the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria.
13. If applicants are unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may appeal by asking the Council to review the decision.

What happened

14. Mrs X has physical health conditions. In March 2021 Mrs X made an application to renew her blue badge. Following the Ombudsman’s investigation on a previous complaint made by Mrs X about her renewal application, the Council invited Mrs X to a face-to-face assessment with an expert assessor. The Council commissions Dependability Limited to conduct assessments on its behalf.
15. The independent mobility assessment was conducted by a qualified expert assessor in November 2021. The assessment report notes that Mrs X reported she had spinal surgery approximately 20 years ago, neurological damage, sciatica and other medical conditions which affected her mobility. A letter from Mrs X’s chiropractor and General Practitioner (GP) was recorded in the assessment.
16. The assessor also recorded Mrs X’s medication, falls history and report of pain. The assessor noted that Mrs X had not sought GP involvement for the fall she reported or physiotherapy to improve her mobility. Mrs X said her GP had recommended anti-depressants and the assessor explained how this type of intervention may help her.
17. The assessment lists the type of mobility aids an applicant may use as follows:

• walking stick(s);
• elbow crutch(es);
• wheeled rollator;
• scooter;
• axilla crutches;
• walking/zimmer frame; and
• wheelchair(s)

18. The assessor recorded the following about Mrs X’s mobility during the formal assessment:

• observed walking 50 metres in 7.31 minutes;
• completed nine steps with shortened half strides;
• limping;
• demonstrated severe fatigue stopping consistently during assessment;
• did not use walking aids; and
• observed mild discomfort but no sweating or grimacing.

19. The assessor then observed Mrs X after the formal assessment, walking from the clinic room and as she left the building and walked away. The assessor was able to view Mrs X from the side and used a stopwatch to record the time. The Council says the purpose of these observations was to determine how different Mrs X walked after the assessment compared to when she was walking with the assessor.
20. The assessor recorded the following:

• observed walking 87 metres in 1.57 minutes;
• walked at a normal pace with normal strides;
• stayed standing up;
• rubbed painful area;
• stopped; and
• reception staff had observed Mrs X walking quickly to the toilets.

21. The assessor decided that Mrs X did not have very considerable difficulty walking and did not meet the criteria for a blue badge. The assessor said Mrs X may benefit from a walking aid and strengthening exercises. Mrs X appealed.
22. Dependability Limited wrote to Mrs X with the appeal decision. It told her the appeal had been unsuccessful. Mrs X then complained to the Council.
23. Mrs X remained unsatisfied and brought her complaint to us.

Analysis

24. It is not my role to decide if someone is eligible for a blue badge and I 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.
25. In considering this, I expect a council to have followed the correct procedure, to have acted in line with the guidance and to have fully considered all evidence submitted by the applicant. If this has not happened, I can ask a council to review its decision.
26. The Council asked a qualified independent expert assessor to conduct an assessment to consider whether Mrs X had a “permanent and substantial disability which causes an inability to walk or very considerable difficulty walking.”
27. I have reviewed Mrs X’s mobility assessment which shows the distance she walked during the formal assessment. The assessor also considered if there were other factors which would make it considerably difficult for Mrs X to walk. The assessment says Mrs X was limping and showed signs of severe fatigue. However, Mrs X only showed mild pain and discomfort and there were no signs of breathlessness. The assessor found no evidence of psychological distress during the assessment.
28. The mobility assessment shows that Mrs X walked at a faster pace after she left the clinic room and walked away from the building. The assessment says Mrs X walked at a normal pace with normal strides. Mrs X stopped and rubbed a painful area but stayed standing up.
29. The assessor fully considered the information they had about Mrs X’s mobility difficulties and assessed her in line with the relevant guidance. However, the Council’s policy does not provide details of when or how it conducts observations before or after the formal assessment. Nor was this explained to Mrs X before the assessment. This is fault.
30. I appreciate this information would have provided Mrs X with clarity about the process and what to expect. However, this would not have changed the outcome of the assessors’ observations of Mrs X’s walking ability after she left the clinic. So, I do not consider Mrs X has been caused an injustice by the lack of information.
31. Mrs X said the assessor failed to acknowledge that she was aided by her husband as she left the building. The assessor observed Mrs X holding her husband’s arm and determined that because of the pace at which she walked, it was not a supportive hold. I appreciate that Mrs X disagrees with this, but I have found no fault in the way the assessor reached this decision. As explained in paragraph 4, if there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. In addition to this, Mrs X did not use any of the aids listed in paragraph 16 above.
32. Mrs X said the Council should agree with medical professionals who submitted letters in support of her blue badge renewal. However, having a certain medical condition does not in itself qualify an applicant for a blue badge. Rather, it is the effect of the condition or a disability on the applicant’s ability to walk that is assessed. This assessment is the role of the expert assessor, not an applicant’s GP or chiropractor.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within two months of my final decision the Council will amend its policy to include information about when the assessment starts and ends.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation, finding fault by the Council but this did not cause Mrs X a personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman