Summary: The Council failed to follow the correct process when considering Mr X’s application for a blue badge.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused his application for a blue badge.

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. 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

4. I considered the complaint and supporting information and considered the Council’s assessment of Mr X which included an assessment of his mobility. I have also taken account of relevant legislation. Both Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

The Blue Badge scheme

5. The Blue Badge scheme is to help disabled people with severe mobility problems access goods and services by allowing them to park near their destination. The scheme provides parking concessions for blue badge holders. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing whether people are eligible for a badge.
6. In 2014 the Department for Transport (DfT) issued guidance (‘the guidance’) to councils for providing blue badges to disabled people with severe mobility problems. The guidance is non-statutory which means that councils are not legally obliged to adopt it. In practice, however, most councils do follow it.
7. The guidance says councils must only issue badges to people who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation. A person is eligible without further assessment if they receive:

• the higher rate of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance; or
• eight points or more under the ‘moving around’ activity of the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment.

8. A person is eligible subject to further assessment if they:

• drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and cannot operate, or have considerable difficulty in operating all or some types of parking metres; or
• have a permanent and substantial disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.

9. The guidance says that, where an applicant is eligible subject to further assessment, an independent mobility assessor should undertake a face-to-face assessment of their mobility. The person completing the assessment should have a professional qualification giving them expertise in assessing walking ability. Councils typically employ occupational therapists and physiotherapists to undertake the assessments. The assessor must be independent of the applicant and their treatment and care.
10. The guidance says applicants who can walk more than 80 metres and do not demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking through any other factors would not be deemed eligible for a badge.
11. Having a certain medical condition does not in itself qualify an applicant for a badge. Rather, it is the effect of the condition or disability on the applicant’s ability to walk that is assessed.
12. The guidance sets out several factors that are relevant in deciding whether an applicant meets the criteria for a blue badge. These include: speed of walking; distance walked; excessive pain; and breathlessness.
13. The guidance recommends a council should have a review mechanism, which preferably does not involve someone directly involved in the original decision. The Council has an appeal process for applicants who are unhappy with its decision.
14. New rules came into force on 30 August 2019. These are designed to make it easier for people with problems that are not exclusively linked to the physical act of walking to qualify for a badge.

Key facts

15. Mr X applied for a blue badge in October 2022. He cited breathlessness and pain in his back and feet and shoulders as reasons he is unable to walk any distance.
16. The Council refused the application and wrote to Mr X on 14 October 2022. I have had sight of a copy of the letter. The author explained the reasons the application had been refused, that although the information Mr X submitted confirmed he had an enduring condition, this in itself did not give entitlement to a blue badge, and there was no evidence to show Mr X’s condition impacted on his ability to walk.
17. Mr X submitted a formal appeal in December 2022. He attached a letter from his GP outlining the progressive nature of his condition, the pain caused, and the impact this had on Mr X’s day-to-day life, including his ability to walk long distances.
18. The Council reviewed the information and referred Mr X for a mobility assessment. It wrote to him in December 2022, informing him of its decision, and said he could expect to hear from the relevant team within two weeks.
19. Mr X underwent the mobility assessment in March on 30 March 2023. I have had sight of the report. It records information about Mr X’s conditions and the impact on him. A copy of the GP letter was also attached. The Council’s eligibility criteria sets out the points, amongst other criteria, a person needs to ‘score’ to be eligible for a blue badge. Points between 0 – 30 are below the eligibility threshold and points 31-48 deem a person eligible for a blue badge. The assessor scored 11 points, and concluded he was not eligible for a blue badge.
20. The Council wrote to Mr X explaining its decision in June 2023. I have had sight of this letter. The author apologised for the time it had taken to complete the review of Mr X’s application and set out the reasons why it had not been upheld. The author confirmed that as part of the review, Mr X had been invited for a mobility assessment, which concluded he did not meet the threshold for a blue badge.
21. Mr X was unhappy with the decision and unhappy that he had no recourse to appeal the decision.

Analysis

22. It is not my role to decide whether Mr X is eligible for a blue badge or give a view about the degree to which he meets the relevant criteria. My role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process in coming to a decision.
23. In this case, the Council failed to follow the correct process. In this case considered the information from Mr X’s GP and conducted the in-person mobility assessment as part of a review, which itself was not incorrect, but it denied Mr X the opportunity to have a review of the full application, including the in-person mobility assessment.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. The Council should within four weeks of the final decision:

• offer Mr X a review of blue badge application.
• provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

25. The Council failed to follow the correct process when considering Mr X’s blue badge application.
26. The recommendation above is a suitable way to settle the complaint.
27. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman