Summary: The Council had insufficient understanding of Miss X’s medical condition to come to a view on her application for a blue badge, and failed to make further enquiries about this. This calls into question the reliability of the decision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to consider relevant medical information when assessing her eligibility for a blue badge, and subsequently refused the application.

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. I considered the Council’s assessment of Miss X which included an assessment of her mobility. I have also taken account of relevant legislation. Both Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document, and comments made were considered.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

5. The Department for Transport (DfT) has issued guidance to councils for providing ‘blue badges’. The Blue Badge scheme entitles drivers or passengers with mobility problems to park nearer to their destination.
6. The DfT updated its guidance in August 2019 to ensure that difficulties experienced by people with non-visible disabilities are considered by councils when determining the eligibility for blue badges. The revisions to the eligibility criteria mean that councils can now consider a person’s difficulty whilst walking, and during the course of a journey, rather than solely their ability to walk or difficulties caused only by the physical act of walking.
7. To qualify for a blue badge, an applicant must be assessed by their council as either ‘eligible without further assessment’, previously known as automatic eligibility, or ‘eligible subject to further assessment’, previously known as discretionary.
8. The guidance says that people may be issued with a badge, following further assessment, if they are:

• “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”

9. If the Council cannot determine whether the applicant falls into the category as described above, it can make a referral to an expert assessor for ‘certification’. The Council is not required to seek expert assessment in all cases.
10. If the Council decides not to issue a blue badge, the regulations say it must notify the applicant, in writing, of the reasons for refusal. The DfT ‘strongly recommends’ that every applicant is given a ‘detailed explanation’ of the grounds for refusal. Councils should not simply state in their refusal letter that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria.

Key facts

11. Miss X is in her twenties. She has a somewhat unusual and enduring condition which she says impacts on her mobility. She says her mobility fluctuates and on bad days can render her immobile.
12. Miss X applied to the Council for a blue badge in early 2023. She provided information about her medical conditions in the form of hospital patient summary.
13. The Council assessed the information and concluded Miss X not to be eligible for further assessment. The application was declined. The Council wrote to Miss X on 16 February 2023 informing her of the outcome of the application.
14. Miss X appealed the decision, saying the Council had not properly considered her medical condition and the impact this has on her mobility.
15. The Council conducted a mobility assessment on 8 March 2023. I have had sight of the assessment in which the assessor noted Miss X’s condition, which caused tumours in her legs, resulting in pain and mobility difficulties. During the assessment, Miss X showed no difficulties whilst mobilising, she was able to walk more than the distance stipulated in the Department of Transport guidelines. The Council concluded she did not meet the eligibility criteria for a blude badge.
16. The Council wrote to Miss X on 8 March 2023 informing her of its decision. Miss X contacted the Council again and asked it to reconsider its decision. She reiterated her medical condition and the fluctuating impact this can have on her mobility. She said the Council had failed to take proper account of this.
17. The Council refused. Miss X submitted a complaint to this office.

Analysis

18. It is not my role to decide whether Miss X is eligible for a blue badge or give a view about the degree to which she meets the relevant criteria. My role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process in coming to a decision.
19. I find the Council failed to do so because it failed to obtain further information about the impact of Miss X’s medical condition.
20. Although Miss X did not present any mobility difficulties on the day of the mobility assessment The condition is complex and the impact on mobility fluctuates. I have seen no evidence that the assessor had sufficient knowledge and understanding of the condition to make an informed decision about the impact on Miss X’s mobility.
21. This calls into question the reliability of the decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. The Council will within four weeks of the final decision, undertake a fresh assessment of Miss X’s application and obtain further information about her medical information.
23. The Council should provide this office with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

24. The Council failed to properly consider Miss X’s application for a blue badge. It failed to make further enquiries about her medical condition.
25. The above recommendations are a suitable way to settle the complaint.
26. 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