Summary: The Council was at fault for not considering whether to provide an interpreter to Mrs B after it became aware that her English may not have been good enough to participate fully in her disabled parking badge assessment. It has agreed to arrange a new assessment.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs B, complains about how the Council assessed her eligibility for a disabled parking (or ‘blue’) badge. She says the Council:
• Failed to provide an interpreter (although English is not her first language). This meant she did not fully understand the assessment process, or the questions being asked of her.
• Failed to take into account all the difficulties she had while walking during her assessment – particularly her pain and breathlessness.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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 information from Mrs B and the Council. Both 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

What happened

5. Mrs B applied for a blue badge in May 2023. She said she had sciatica and a protruding intervertebral disc. She had received surgery and radiotherapy for breast cancer which made her feel weak. And she used prescribed pain medication. She provided medical evidence.
6. The Council offered Mrs B an appointment for a telephone assessment. It said:

Please let us know if you have any special language requirements such as needing an interpreter before your appointment with as much notice as possible. We are happy for family or friends to act as your interpreter if they are able to do so.

7. The Council then completed its telephone assessment. The assessor decided Mrs B did not qualify for a blue badge, and noted that:

She did not report any significant shortness of breath on walking. Information provided and supporting evidence does not indicate very considerable difficulty with walking. Her lumbar prolapse and radiculopathy would be expected to improve in time, with appropriate treatment.

8. After being told her application was unsuccessful, Mrs B called the Council. She said her English was not very good, and she had not been asked about her breathlessness, which was her main problem. She said she would get more medical evidence and would appeal.
9. The Council received Mrs B’s appeal from a charity on her behalf. The support worker submitting the appeal said:
• Mrs B did not accept that she had no problems with breathlessness. Her breathlessness score should have been higher, which would have justified a blue badge.
• She misunderstood the questions as English was her second language (and she communicated with the charity’s support worker through an interpreter).
10. The Council offered Mrs B an appointment for an in-person assessment. The email included the same text about an interpreter as its previous appointment email had.
11. The Council then completed its in-person assessment. The assessor decided
    Mrs B did not qualify for a blue badge, and noted:
• No breathlessness was observed during the walking test.
• “The main reason for the applicant’s appeal was that due to English being their second language, they misunderstood the question regarding whether they have any breathlessness and therefore this was not taken into account. Both the information provided at their initial assessment and the additional information provided at their appeal has been taken into consideration”.
12. The Council wrote to Mrs B and told her the appeal had been unsuccessful.

My findings

13. It is not my role to decide if Mrs B qualifies for a blue badge. Consequently, I will not comment on the merits of the Council’s assessments. My focus is on whether there was procedural fault which calls the Council’s refusal decision into question.
14. I note that the Council offered an interpreter to Mrs B in writing, twice, and she did not ask for one. However, the Council was notified more than once that Mrs B’s English was not good enough to properly understand the assessments, and that her own support worker spoke to her through an interpreter.
15. The Council did not consider whether to provide an interpreter in response to receiving this information (or whether its written offers of an interpreter, in English, were likely to have been properly understood by Mrs B).
16. This was fault by the Council. And it raises questions about how fully Mrs B was able to participate in the Council’s assessments. This, in turn, raises questions about the outcomes of those assessments.

Back to top

Agreed action

17. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to arrange a new in-person blue badge assessment of Mrs B, with an interpreter present.
18. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done this.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Council was at fault for not considering whether to provide an interpreter to Mrs B after it became aware that her English may not have been good enough to participate fully in her blue badge assessment.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman