Summary: Mr J complained the Council did not assess his application for a blue badge properly and failed to consider his health conditions enough. Mr J said this has affected his mental health. We found no fault in the process the Council followed, we cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr J, complained the Council wrongly refused his application for a blue badge and failed to consider his health conditions properly.
2. As a result, Mr J said he experienced distress due to not having a blue badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
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. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr J’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mr J and considered the information he provided; and
• considered the relevant law and guidance to the complaint.
7. Mr J 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

The governments blue badge scheme

8. 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. 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.
9. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Unless an applicant is eligible for a blue badge without further assessment, the applicant will be subject to further assessment to show they fulfil the criteria. They must either:
• 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.
13. 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. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

What happened

14. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
15. In May 2022 Mr J applied for a blue badge. He shared information about his knee problems and pain when walking, anxiety and panic attacks, short temper, breathing difficulties due to bronchitis, and information about the medicine he was receiving.
16. Mr J’s GP also provided the Council with a proforma which confirmed his health problems and referred to how this impacted him. This also included information about a neighbour dispute which was causing Mr J increased anxiety.
17. The Council assessed Mr J’s application under walking and hidden disabilities. It decided Mr J did not meet the blue badge criteria.
18. Mr J did not agree with the Council’s decision and asked for a review.
19. The Council arranged for an occupational therapist (OT) to assess Mr J’s application. The OT considered the evidence Mr J and his GP had provided, but found he was not eligible for a blue bade due to scoring insufficient points.
20. The Council told Mr J a different assessor had reviewed his application, but its decision remained unchanged. It refunded his application fee and explained it had not seen enough evidence Mr J had:
• issues with communication, memory, cognition or hazard perception. He was therefore not a risk to himself or others when walking or undertaking a journey; and
• anxiety and panic attacks which amounted to a considerable psychological distress in the context of walking or undertaking a journey more often than not.
21. Mr J asked the Council to consider his application under mobility eligibility.
22. The Council assessed Mr J again, but he did not score enough point to be eligible for a blue badge. The Council shared its decision and its reasons with Mr J.
23. Mr J asked the Council to review its decision, but the Council did not change its decision.
24. Mr J asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint. He said the Council had failed to properly consider how his health problems, including his panic attacks, and breathing difficulties, impacted on his walking and travelling.

Analysis and findings

25. The Council considered all the evidence provided by Mr J for his initial blue badge application. It decided he did not meet the criteria set out in the government guidance. I have found no fault in the Council’s actions in making its decision on the application.
26. The Council’s decision letter gave Mr J appeal rights. Mr J exercised his right of appeal. It was conducted appropriately and took into account all relevant information. The Council explained in the appeal decision the information provided did not prove he met the criteria for a blue badge. It reached and explained its decision in accordance with statutory guidance. We cannot question a decision which has been made appropriately. I appreciate this is not the response Mr J wanted, but I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council.
27. I recognise the situation has been challenging for Mr J and he will be disappointed with the Council’s decision. I cannot question a decision the Council made if it followed the right procedure. I am satisfied the Council properly considered both Mr J’s application and appeal. There is no evidence of fault in the actions taken by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

28. The Council was not at fault, it is on this basis I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman