Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse him a Blue Badge. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making however we found fault in its communication with Mr X, causing uncertainty. We recommended the Council provide Mr X with an apology.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse him a Blue Badge. He believes it has ignored relevant information and reached a decision inconsistent with its 2019 approval. He could not park at his workplace and suffered stress.

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 spoke to Mr X and I reviewed documents provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Government guidance; Blue Badge scheme

7. The Blue Badge (Disabled Persons’ Parking) Scheme was introduced in 1971 under Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
8. The aim of the scheme is to help people with severe mobility problems caused by visible and non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities to access goods and services, by allowing them to park close to their destination.
9. The Department for Transport publishes guidance for councils on how to administer the scheme.
10. An individual’s eligibility for a Blue Badge is considered in terms of being ‘eligible without further assessment’ (previously known as ‘automatic’) or ‘eligible subject to further assessment’ (previously known as ‘discretionary’).
11. Relevant to this case, people ‘eligible subject to further assessment’ may be described as:
• a person who drives regularly, has a severe disability in both arms and is unable to operate, or has considerable difficulty in operating, all, or some types of parking meter; or
• a person 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, experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress
• in addition, they may be at risk of serious harm when walking - or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person
12. *Where the decision maker is unable to determine that the applicant is clearly eligible or clearly ineligible for badge, the application should be referred to an expert assessor for certification.

Council policy

13. The Council’s website refers people to Gov.uk where they can check their eligibility and apply online for a Blue Badge.
14. The Council says if you do not have access to the internet at home or work, you can use its public access PCs at one of its libraries or town halls.
15. Further, that staff at the Town Hall can help you to complete the form if needed.
16. The Council says there is no appeal process against a decision made by it to refuse a Blue Badge. However, if you disagree with the decision or can provide more information, you can ask the Council to reconsider.

Equality Act 2010

17. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
18. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
19. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

20. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge. On his application he said he had severe dyslexia anxiety and depression. He explained he needed to park close to work and shops as he otherwise had difficulties planning journeys and remembering where he parked, leading to panic attacks and stress. He enclosed supporting documents including a 2011 disability needs assessment completed by an education provider, a 2019 workplace assessment and, a 2019 letter referring to a disability grant received for equipment and training.
21. The Council has provided a copy of its internal decision record. This shows it found Mr X did not meet the threshold for a badge. It noted no support was needed for anxiety and Mr X had confirmed he could manage his anxiety without any assistance/counselling.
22. The Council wrote to Mr X refusing his application. It said:
• Having considered the information provided it did not feel his conditions met the criteria of putting him at risk of serious harm or cause him considerable psychological distress, in line with the guidelines set out by the Department of Transport.
• Under the legislation there is no right of appeal against this decision. However, if there is information which was not produced previously, he may write to it further.
23. Mr X wrote to the Council seeking reasons for its decision with reference to the law, policy and evidence he provided. He noted he had been eligible for a Blue Badge previously.
24. The Council responded further. In summary:
• It referred to the law under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
• It explained it considered his described difficulties together with the reports he provided and decided to reject the application.
• It has now reviewed the information provided and upheld the original decision.
• It was not satisfied he experienced very considerable difficulty or poses a risk of serious harm to himself or others, while walking during the course of a journey.
• His Workplace Assessment outlined disabilities/health conditions of dyslexia, manifesting with difficulties in reading, writing and organization. The assessment made recommendations to explore the possibility of being provided with a parking permit for his workplace as he can experience difficulty in parking in a busy area around his workplace. A Blue Badge is not a workplace parking permit.
• He can go to the Ombudsman.
25. When I spoke to Mr X he said those with a Blue Badge can park free of charge in his workplace car park. The alternative is parking near the workplace at £24 per day or parking further away. This is cheaper but it is hard to find a space; residents complain about parking and; he struggles to remember where he has parked, causing distress. He said it was hard to outline his difficulties and the impact on his mental health in writing due to his dyslexia, but he had no opportunity to apply by phone.
26. In response to enquiries the Council said it considered all the evidence and felt Mr X did not meet any of the criteria under the Hidden Disability category. It considered the decision to award a Blue Badge previously was incorrect.
27. In comments on a draft decision Mr X said:
• His trust in the Council is damaged.
• He is unhappy the Council offers no right of appeal.
• The Council has caused him distress and the process has been confusing.
• The lack of a Blue Badge has made his life very difficult.

Findings

28. I cannot criticise the Council’s professional judgement or say its decision is right or wrong. Rather I can investigate how the Council reached its decision and whether it followed a proper decision making process. We expect councils to consider relevant information and decide in line with relevant law, policy and guidance. They should then communicate their decision to the service user.
29. The Council’s initial decision letter confirmed it had considered Mr X’s information and gave reasons for its refusal with reference to Government guidance. I find no fault in the Council’s decision making. I recognise this was not as full an explanation as Mr X sought, however this meets our expectations.
30. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council gave reasons for its decision, also referring to the specific law that applied. However, it did not explain why its decision was different to its previous, although Mr X raised this. This amounts to fault. Mr X suffered uncertainty. This is injustice. The Council has since explained it made its previous decision in error. I consider it should also apologise to Mr X for not providing this information previously.
31. The Council’s website makes clear service users can ask staff to help them complete an application if needed. I am therefore satisfied the Council has had regard to its duty to ensure its service is accessible. Further, I have not seen any evidence Mr X asked to apply by phone or that the Council refused this. I therefore find no fault.
32. We expect councils to allow service users to request a review or appeal of its decisions. The Council’s policy makes clear service users can request a review and Mr X made use of this.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. To remedy the injustice set out above the Council should carry out the following action within one month:
• Provide Mr X with an apology for the fault identified at paragraph 29.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
35. The Council has accepted my recommendation.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I find the Council at fault in its communication with Mr X. The Council has accepted my recommendation and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman