Summary: Miss C complains the Council failed to properly consider her application for a Blue Badge which means she struggles with day to day activities outside the home. We have found fault by the Council in the way it explained its decision to Miss C. However, we consider the agreed action of ensuring a more detailed explanation of any decision with the Council’s agreement to accept a new application provides a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss C, complains the Council failed to properly consider her application for a Blue Badge. Miss C says because of the Council's fault she struggles with day to day activities outside the home.

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. 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)
4. 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

5. I read the papers provided by Miss C and discussed the complaint with her. I have considered the Council’s response to my enquiries. I have explained my draft decision to Miss C and the Council and provided an opportunity for comment.

Back to top

What I found

The Blue Badge Scheme

6. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge Scheme helps people with severe physical mobility problems, or other conditions affecting their mobility, to access goods and services.
7. It does this by allowing them, or their carer, to park near their destination. The scheme gives parking concessions to Blue Badge holders. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing applicants’ eligibility for the badge.
8. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
9. The DfT guidance sets out what assessors may wish to consider when assessing a person’s mobility. The guidance is non-statutory. This means councils do not have to follow it, but most councils do. We expect councils to explain if they decide not to follow such guidance.
10. The guidance says councils must make sure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation. There are two types of eligibility criteria:

1. where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;

2. where a person is eligible subject to further assessment, they have to fulfil one of two criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:

• drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and be unable to operate, or have considerable difficulty operating, all or some types of parking meter; OR

• have a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.

11. The guidance states that if it is not self-evident based on the available information whether the application falls within the descriptors above then a referral should be made to an expert assessor. The guidance further sets out that referral to an ‘expert assessor’ is unnecessary when a local authority determines that, from the information that they have about the applicant, it is self-evident that the applicant does, or does not, meet one of the ‘subject to further assessment’ eligibility criteria, for example that the applicant is clearly eligible or ineligible and further assessment would not assist the local authority in determining eligibility. The reason for this is that it would be overly burdensome for both local authorities and for applicants to require further assessment in cases where an applicant’s disability means that they are clearly eligible or ineligible.
12. Applicants who can walk more than 80 metres and do not display very considerable difficulty walking for any other reason, including very considerable psychological distress, or serious risk to themselves or others, would not be eligible.
13. The guidance strongly recommends that every applicant who is refused a Blue Badge should be given a detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal and it is not enough to simply state the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria.
14. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

Key events

15. Miss C applied online to the Council in March 2022 for a Blue Badge. This application provided details of the diagnosis of a health condition which Miss C explained made walking very painful and getting in and out of a car difficult.
16. As part of her application, Miss C explained she walked her child to school each day which took her about 10 minutes but that she was always in pain. Miss C provided details of the pain medication she was using and information from her consultant rheumatologist.
17. The Council wrote to Miss C in March with its decision that she was not eligible for a Blue Badge. The Council’s letter set out the eligibility criteria and how Miss C could request a review of the decision and provide any additional evidence. This letter did not provide a detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal as recommended in the relevant guidance. The Ombudsman would also expect the Council to provide a clear explanation of the reasons for refusal.
18. Miss C emailed the Council in March to say she considered she met the criteria of having ‘a permanent and substantial disability which means you cannot walk or find walking very difficult’. Miss C explained she suffered from widespread pain on a daily basis and was on medication and was due to see a physio. Miss C asked what more evidence the Council needed to support her application.
19. Miss C sent a follow up email to the Council in early April as she had not received a reply. The Council responded to say it was reviewing the matter and it may take up to six weeks to provide an outcome.
20. The Council wrote to Miss C in early May with the outcome of its review. The Council explained Miss C was not eligible for a Blue Badge as she was not able to show the effects of her condition met the threshold of considerable difficulty whilst walking. The letter says the Council had considered each aspect of Miss C’s walking difficulties in isolation and together to reach this decision but provides no further detail. The Council explained Miss C was not able to make a new application within 12 months of the review decision.
21. Miss C complained to the Council towards the end of May about its decision and noted she had not received a reply to her query about more evidence the Council needed.
22. The Council responded to Miss C’s complaint in early June and explained there was not a list of additional evidence but the Council would consider any information provided by an applicant during its review. The Council referred to its decision letter in March and noted that Miss C had provided additional information in her review request. The Council explained the high threshold in relation to difficulty walking and that it reviewed all the information provided to decide why walking was difficult including how pain was described, the impact on balance and coordination, use of mobility aids, current medical interventions and treatment and psychological impacts. The Council explained it had looked again at the information Miss C had provided although there was no further right of appeal of a review decision. The Council listed the information Miss C had provided including about her condition, the details and timing of the example journey she had provided, her pain medication, any history of falls, any coping strategies she used and the impact on her mental health she had described. The Council explained it had considered this information in reaching its decision that Miss C did not meet the criteria for a Blue Badge. The Council provided the contact details for the Ombudsman. I am satisfied this further letter from the Council provided Miss C with a clear and detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal.
23. The Council has confirmed it accepts Miss C has difficulty walking but it has assessed Miss C as not meeting the criteria of very considerable difficulty. The Council has provided the Ombudsman with details of how it reached this decision. The Council has also provided details of how it reached its view that it was self-evident Miss C did not meet the relevant criteria which meant it did not make a referral to an expert assessor.
24. Based on the information provided, I am satisfied the Council considered all the information provided by Miss C in her application and review decision in reaching its decision she is not eligible for a Blue Badge. The Council has also provided cogent reasons why it has not made a referral to an expert assessor as part of this process. I see no fault here.
25. However, I do not consider the Council’s original decision letter in March provided a clear explanation of the reasons for refusal and this constitutes fault. I further consider the absence of a more detailed explanation of the reasons for refusal may have caused Miss C an injustice by affecting her ability to support her subsequent review request. This was compounded by the Council’s failure to respond directly to Miss C’s question about additional evidence. I also consider the Council’s review decision letter does not provide a sufficient level of detail.
26. However, more recent events have to a large extent overtaken the above. During the course of my investigation, Miss C explained her condition had deteriorated and she now used a mobility scooter all the time including when taking her child to school as walking any distance was too painful. Although the Council will not normally accept a new application within 12 months of a decision, it has advised the Ombudsman that it has exercised its discretion to accept a new application from Miss C based on her change in circumstances. The Ombudsman would welcome this action. I consider this action by the Council with the agreed actions below provides a suitable remedy for Miss C.
27. It would be open to Miss C to seek a review of the Council’s decision if she is unhappy with the outcome of this fresh application and make a new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains unhappy following the outcome of any review.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. The Council will take the following action:
1. write to Miss C to apologise for its failure to provide a clear and detailed explanation of the reasons it refused her application for a Blue Badge during its application process within one month of my final decision;
2. ensure it provides a clear and detailed written explanation to Miss C for its decision in due course on her new application (and any subsequent review request); and
3. review its procedures to ensure it provides applicants with a clear and detailed explanation of the reasons when deciding to refuse a Blue Badge application within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation as I have found evidence of fault by the Council but consider the agreed action above with the action already taken by the Council provides a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman