Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it considered Miss X’s daughter’s application for a disabled parking badge. It considered the information in Miss X’s application form, the medical evidence she provided and the criteria set out in government guidance. As there was no fault in how the decision was made, we cannot question it.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss X, complains about how the Council dealt with her application for a disabled parking badge – routinely called ‘blue badges’ – for her daughter, whom I refer to as Y.
2. Y suffers from a rare neurodevelopmental disorder and is awaiting a formal diagnosis for autism. Her conditions have symptoms which, according to Miss X, cause her great difficulty walking. These include bowel pain, muscle weakness and seizures. Miss X says Y’s autistic traits also make taking her out difficult.
3. The Council issued Y a blue badge in 2018 but, when it considered renewing the badge in 2022, refused. Miss X says it failed to assess her application properly and did not consider all the evidence she provided.
4. Miss X says without the blue badge Y is at greater risk of falls, seizures and meltdowns. She wants the Council to issue a new badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered information from Miss X and the Council.
8. I considered the Department for Transport (DfT)’s non-statutory ‘Blue badge scheme’ guidance.
9. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened?

10. The DfT’s blue badge scheme helps people with severe physical mobility problems, or other conditions affecting their mobility, to access goods and services. It does this by allowing them to park near their destination. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration of the scheme. This includes assessing applicants’ eligibility.
11. 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 the guidance.
12. To qualify for a badge, an applicant needs to show that they are unable to walk very far without experiencing severe difficulty, and that their inability to walk is such that they are unable to access goods and services unless allowed to park close to shops, public buildings, and other facilities. Several factors may be relevant to determining this, including whether the applicant has very considerable psychological distress while walking.
13. It is reasonable for local authorities to decide that the frequency with which an applicant experiences very considerable difficulty while walking should be ‘more often than not’ when determining eligibility.
14. Councils need to be satisfied that a child’s difficulties cannot otherwise be managed through reasonable coping strategies. For example, where an applicant would only ever be accompanied by another person, and being accompanied would ease any ‘very considerable’ difficulty, a badge would not help.

What happened?

15. Miss X submitted Y’s application in September 2022, and set out the difficulties Y had walking (as summarised in the opening section of this decision statement). She also provided medical evidence to support the application.
16. In early October the Council refused Miss X’s application. The independent assessor concluded that, although Y was in receipt of disability benefits and required more support than others her age, there was no evidence she could not be kept safe by being accompanied. The assessor said that although Y experienced some anxiety and fear, it was not clear that this constituted considerable distress, more often than not, when undertaking a journey.
17. Miss X appealed the Council’s decision and provided more supporting evidence. However, in early November the Council rejected her appeal. The independent assessor summarised the reasons Miss X had given for requesting the blue badge, and also summarised the relevant evidence she had provided. The assessor supported the original refusal decision, and concluded:
• There is no evidence Y poses a risk to herself or to others when walking.
• Y is compliant, is able to understand key two-word instructions and there is no evidence she wanders away from her family group.
• There is no evidence Y cannot walk between a vehicle and her destination, once the vehicle is parked.

My findings

18. The Council’s summary of Y’s needs and difficulties in its appeal outcome letter (and in the assessor’s consideration) is a reasonable reflection of the information provided by Miss X in her application.
19. The same is true of the Council’s summary of the medical evidence Miss X provided. Although not all the evidence was summarised, the relevant documents were (and it would not be reasonable to expect the Council to summarise so many documents when not all were directly relevant to the application).
20. The Council’s conclusions about Y’s difficulties (insofar as they relate to blue badge criteria) are not obviously flawed or unreasonable. The DfT guidance allows the Council to make those conclusions, and the tests applied by the assessor are those set out in the guidance (including considering whether being accompanied could be a coping strategy for Y).
21. This means there was no fault in how the Council considered Y’s application. This, in turn, means that – irrespective of what my views may or may not be on the application – I cannot question the Council’s decision. This is because the Ombudsman has no power to question a decision taken without fault.
22. As a consequence, I intend to complete my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

23. The Council was not at fault for how it considered Y’s blue badge application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman