Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consider all his health needs when he applied for a blue badge. We do not find fault with the Council, so we cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider all his medical needs when he applied for a blue badge.
2. Mr X would like the Council to reconsider his application and to issue 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 how the organisation made its decision, 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 considered Mr X’s complaint and supporting information.
6. I also considered the Council’s response to Mr X and to my enquiries.
7. Mr 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

Government Blue Badge Scheme

8. The Department for Transport issued revised guidance (May 2022) to councils when providing Blue Badges to disabled people with severe mobility problems. The guidance provides a structured functional mobility assessment. The guidance is non-statutory meaning that councils are not legally obliged to adopt it. In practice, however, most councils do follow it.
9. 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.
10. There are two types of eligibility criteria:
• where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;
• where a person may be eligible subject to further assessment.
11. To qualify under the second criteria, an applicant must be more than two years old and fall within one or more of the following descriptions:
• drives a vehicle regularly, has a severe disability in both arms and cannot use, or;
• has considerable difficulty in using, all or some types of parking meter; or
• has been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring and substantial disability which causes then, during a journey, to:
1. be unable to walk;
2. experience considerable difficulty while walking, which may include considerable psychological distress; or
3. be at risk of serious harm when walking; or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person.
12. Applicants who can walk more than 80 metres and do not display considerable difficulty walking for any other reason, including 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

13. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
14. In March 2023 Mr X applied for a blue badge. He shared information about his recent Crohn’s disease diagnosis which included bowel incontinence, causing him anxiety.
15. In May the Council sought further medical evidence to support Mr X’s application. Mr X sent a letter from the hospital with his diagnosis, medical history and medication.
16. The Council assessed Mr X’s application under the further assessment criteria. It decided Mr X did not meet the blue badge criteria as the evidence did not show he has an “enduring or substantial disability” and does not show he has an inability to access services.
17. Mr X did not agree with the Council’s decision and asked for a review. He said the Council failed to look at his hidden disability and only assessed his physical disability.
18. The Council arranged for an Independent Mobility Assessor (IMA) to assess Mr X. The IMA assessed Mr X in person and considered the evidence he had provided, but found he was not eligible for a blue badge as the severity of his condition did not meet the blue badge guidelines.
19. The Council told Mr X its decision remained unchanged. It said he did not meet the criteria for a blue badge because:
• The evidence provided does not show Mr X cannot access the community;
• Mr X is receiving therapeutic management so the Council cannot tell at this stage if his condition will impact him to a substantial level for the next three years.
20. The Council said Mr X can reapply in six months if his mobility needs have not changed.
21. Mr X made a complaint to the Council saying it had failed to consider all the relevant reasons including non-visible disabilities and conditions.
22. The Council response said it had considered all factors and acknowledged the areas of difficulty. However the Council said there is no evidence to suggest the application had been incorrectly assessed.
23. Mr X asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint. He said the Council had failed to properly consider how his hidden disabilities, including tiredness and brain fog, impacted on his walking and travelling.

Analysis

24. The Council considered all the evidence provided by Mr X for his blue badge application. It decided he did not meet the criteria set out in the government guidance. On the evidence provided I find no fault in the Council’s actions in making its decision on the application.
25. The Council’s decision letter gave Mr X appeal rights. Mr X exercised his right of appeal. It was conducted correctly and considered 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 correctly. I appreciate this is not the response Mr X wanted, but I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council.
26. I recognise the situation has been challenging for Mr X 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 X’s application and appeal. There is no evidence of fault in the actions taken by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I do not find fault with the Council for the consideration of Mr X’s blue badge application.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman