Summary: Mr X complained that the Council refused his application for a Blue Badge. We found the Council incorrectly interpreted the guidance in failing to give Mr X the opportunity to provide supporting information from his GP. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to invite Mr X to submit information from his GP in support of his application and to reassess the application considering all the information provided.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council refused his application for a Blue Badge. As a result, he suffers pain and distress when accessing shops and visiting the hospital.

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 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 have considered all the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. 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

Legal and administrative background

6. The 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 a badge.
7. The Department for Transport (DfT) guidance for local authorities 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Applicants who can walk more than 80 metres and do not display very considerable difficulty walking for any other reason, including very 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.

Key facts

11. Mr X applied for a blue badge in January 2023. His application stated he had suffered an injury to his ankle in an accident. He attached supporting documents from the hospital.
12. An officer reviewed the application and telephoned Mr X. He provided further information. The officer referred the application for an independent medical assessment with an occupational therapist (OT) to determine his eligibility.
13. The OT recorded that Mr X reported having multiple surgeries on his ankle following an accident. He said he had 80% movement in his foot and could not walk far without his ankle hurting badly. He reported having fallen on uneven ground because his foot does not rotate making him trip. Mr X explained he wanted a blue badge so he could park closer to places to avoid the pain of walking too far.
14. The OT observed Mr X independently walking at a normal pace of 60-90 metres per minute from the waiting area to the assessment room. He was able to mobilise without stopping. The OT recorded that, during the assessment, Mr X had to move his ankle frequently which he said was because of pain. The OT concluded that, given the observed mobility and reported level of function, Mr X was able to walk for at least 80 metres. Accordingly, she refused the application and wrote to Mr X explaining this.
15. Mr X requested a review of the OT’s decision. He said he was in constant pain which had affected his physical and mental health and he was now living with depression and PTSD. He said he discussed this with the OT but she did not mention it in her report. Mr X said he had contacted his consultant who had agreed to sign the necessary form and answer any further questions.
16. The Council wrote to Mr X’s consultant seeking further information and enclosed a form to complete. The hospital returned the form stating “Sorry, consultant involved not able to complete - try GP”.
17. The Council wrote to Mr X saying it had received information from his consultant who was “not able to support your application”. It stated that, having taken all the information into consideration, it was unable to re-assess his application and its original decision refusing the blue badge remained.

Analysis

18. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether Mr X is eligible for a blue badge. Our role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process in reaching its decision.
19. The Council’s policy in relation to reviews says, “Where a complaint from an applicant concerns the merits of medical assessment made by the Physiotherapist, the onus will be on the complainant to provide alternative compelling medical evidence. Such evidence should include a declaration showing how the applicant meets the mobility criteria from an appropriate medical practitioner such as a Consultant… Sheffield City Council will not accept evidence from the person’s GP (in line with the national approach of not accepting GP assessments”.
20. The DfT guidance says at paragraph 4.90, “Local authorities can choose to accept evidence from GPs in support of applications, provided this is not the only source of evidence that is used to determine the eligibility of a Blue Badge application. A GP cannot fulfil the role of ‘expert assessor’. As such, input from an applicant’s own GP may be considered helpful where it contextualises the applicants lived experience of their disability in the absence of input from other suitably qualified health or social care professionals.”
21. I consider the Council has incorrectly interpreted the guidance. While it prohibits GPs from being expert assessors, it does not prevent them from providing additional evidence to support an application.
22. When responding to Mr X’s review request, the Council told him his consultant “did not support his application”. This is incorrect. The consultant did not state that he did not support the application but simply that he could not complete the form and suggested Mr X’s GP was asked instead.
23. I find the Council was at fault in failing to explain the correct position to Mr X and give him the opportunity to obtain supporting information from his GP instead. As Mr X had provided other supporting evidence with his application the Council could have accepted evidence from the GP.
24. Given that Mr X has taken the time to complain to us, I consider that, on a balance of probability, if the Council had given him the opportunity it is likely he would have sought evidence from his GP to support his application. Failure to allow Mr X the opportunity to do so caused him an injustice as he was denied the opportunity to have all relevant information considered.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. The Council has agreed that, within one month, it will invite Mr X to submit information from his GP in support of his application. It will then reassess his application considering all the information he has provided.
26. The Council has also agreed that, within two months, it will review its policy to ensure it complies with national guidance.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I find fault by the Council causing injustice.
29. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman