Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to consider her daughter’s case properly when it refused her application for a blue badge. There is no evidence fault affected the decision in Ms B’s daughter’s case.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complained the Council failed to consider her daughter’s case properly when refusing her application for a blue badge as it minimised the impact of her daughter’s autism.
2. Ms B says as a result it is more difficult for her daughter to access outings.

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. 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Ms B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• watched the CCTV footage of part of the area where the assessor carried out the in person assessment.
6. Ms B and the organisation 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 Blue Badge Scheme

7. 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.
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.
11. There are two types of eligibility criteria:
• where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;
• where a person is eligible subject to further assessment, they have to fulfil one of two criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:
1. 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
2. have a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
12. An applicant can qualify for a Blue Badge if they have an enduring (lasting for at least three years) and substantial disability that means they are, during the course of a journey, at risk of serious harm when walking, or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to themselves or any other person.
13. In respect of physical disabilities and/or non-visible ('hidden') conditions, only where a local authority cannot satisfy itself that an applicant meets, or does not meet, the eligibility criteria, based on the evidence provided by the applicant would it be expected to appoint an 'expert assessor'. Most applicants would reasonably be expected to demonstrate a health/social care history that is consistent with having an enduring and substantial disability that causes them very considerable difficulty when walking between a vehicle and their destination, therefore it is anticipated that appointing an expert assessor would be by exception.
14. The guidance says councils should consider any coping mechanisms people have in place. This can include people being accompanied on journeys.
15. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the Council to review the decision.

What happened

16. Ms B’s daughter has a diagnosis of autism. Ms B says her daughter exhibits unpredictable behaviour as a result and is unsafe when walking outside. Ms B previously had a Blue Badge for her daughter. At a reassessment in 2022 the Council decided Ms B’s daughter did not qualify for a Blue Badge. Ms B asked for a review of that decision. Ms B’s daughter then had an in person assessment which concluded she did not have very considerable difficulty whilst walking and had not demonstrated considerable psychological distress whilst walking. The assessor also concluded Ms B’s daughter was not at serious harm when walking and did not pose a serious risk to others. The Council therefore refused the application for a Blue Badge. Ms B says the assessor failed to take into account the fact her daughter was looking to the side while walking and would have tripped over a boulder if Ms B had not intervened.

Analysis

17. We do not act as a further right of appeal and it is not our role to decide if Ms B’s daughter is eligible for a Blue Badge. Our role is to consider if there is fault in how the Council reached its decision. We look at whether the Council followed the guidance and considered relevant information when reaching its decision.
18. Ms B says the Council failed to properly consider her daughter’s case when it refused her application for a Blue Badge. Ms B says the Council minimised her daughter’s autism and says the assessor that carried out the in person assessment failed to identify her daughter was looking to the side when walking and would have tripped over some boulders had Ms B not pointed out the danger. Ms B says her daughter’s behaviour is unpredictable and the Council failed to take that into account.
19. In terms of the in person assessment, as I say in paragraph 13, the guidance is clear an in person assessment for somebody with a hidden disability will be an exception. I would therefore be concerned if the Council had based its decision to refuse the Blue Badge solely on the in person assessment. However, I am satisfied as well as considering the in person assessment the Council also considered the documentary evidence Ms B provided in support of her application. I am satisfied after considering that evidence the Council did not consider Ms B’s daughter qualified for a Blue Badge because it was not satisfied she satisfied the criteria referred to in paragraphs 12 and 13. As the Council reached that view after considering all the evidence Ms B provided and not just the in person assessment I could not say the Council reached its decision with fault.
20. In reaching that view I recognise Ms B believes the assessor was wrong to conclude her daughter was safe while walking. Ms B says the CCTV evidence of the assessment, which Ms B has not seen, will show her daughter was unsafe while walking around the car park as she was looking to the side and would have tripped had Ms B not been present.
21. I have now watched the CCTV evidence. That does not show the entire area because it was not a recording of the assessment itself. There just happened to be CCTV covering part of the car park. Because of how the camera is set up it does not show Ms B’s daughter’s head for most of the assessment. In the sections that do show her head she seems to be looking straight on unless one of the other two people with her was talking to her. There were also sections where the visuals became blurry as the three of them were walking in the section of the car park coming back towards the building. What is clear is Ms B intervened to point out the boulder on the floor to her daughter to prevent her tripping over it. I am satisfied the assessor saw that.
22. I would therefore have expected the assessor to record that incident in her notes following the assessment. However, the notes do not refer to that. I recognise Ms B believes this incident alone is sufficient to demonstrate her daughter is unsafe while walking. However, as I say in paragraph 14, the guidance is clear when deciding whether a person is unsafe while walking it is appropriate to take into account any coping mechanisms that person has. The documentary evidence Ms B provided to the Council shows she accompanies her daughter whenever she is out. I also consider it likely Ms B would be with her daughter when driving her to various locations. I am satisfied the Council would have had to take that into account when deciding whether Ms B’s daughter required a blue badge. I therefore do not consider it likely, on the balance of probability, the decision to refuse the blue badge would have been different had the assessor highlighted the issue with the boulder given it is unlikely Ms B’s daughter would be out walking alone.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman