Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a Blue Badge. She also complains about the process followed by the Council when responding to her concerns and the significant time and trouble caused by its delay. The Council has already apologised and offered a payment of £180 in recognition of Miss Y’s distress. The Council will increase this to £250 because of the significant delay and for the fault in the handling of the complaint. There is further fault causing injustice because the Council did not properly consider Miss Y’s application for a Blue Badge.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains the Council wrongly assessed her Blue Badge application and did not properly deal with her complaint about the matter. This has caused avoidable upset, time and trouble.

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. During this investigation I discussed the complaint with Miss Y and considered the information she provided.
5. We made enquiries of the Council, and I considered its response.
6. I consulted the relevant law and guidance which I have referenced in this statement.
7. Miss Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

8. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge Scheme helps people with substantial and enduring physical mobility problems, or other conditions affecting their mobility. 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 the badge.
9. The guidance 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.
10. 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. There are two types of eligibility criteria:
1. where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;
2. where a person is eligible subject to further assessment, they have to fulfil one of two criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:
• 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
• have an enduring and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
11. The guidance also says that:
• Councils 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.
• Applicants may be eligible if they can walk 30-80 metres without pain or breathlessness but demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking due to other factors. For example, extremely slow pace and/or manner of walking.
• The previous version of this guidance referred to ‘permanent and substantial disability’. The current guidance now refers to disabilities which are ‘enduring and substantial’. This is to recognise that some disabilities, particularly those which affect cognitive function and mental capabilities, may vary with continued personal development or in response to treatment. Blue Badges may therefore be awarded to an applicant with a disability that is expected to endure in some way for the three-year badge issue period.

What happened

12. Miss Y applied for a Blue Badge on 29 March 2023. The Council considered her application and issued a refusal on 5 June because it said the evidence provided by Miss Y did not show she has a “permanent and substantial impairment” which causes “substantial walking difficulties" which prevent her from walking up to 50 metres unaided.
13. The Council’s refusal letter provided Miss Y with her right to request an appeal within one month. Miss Y appealed on 26 June.
14. On 16 August the Council contacted Miss Y to request additional supporting evidence. Miss Y responded on 23 August. When she did not receive a response, Miss Y contacted the Council on several occasions seeking an update on her appeal.
15. Miss Y received information that the Council intended to refuse her application because the additional information she provided did not show evidence of any future medical appointments.
16. Following this, Miss Y found another hospital letter and also asked her doctor to provide a further letter. Miss Y sent the additional information on 13 September to the Blue Badge appeals team and directly to the officer dealing with her application.
17. Miss Y says she did not hear anything further, so made repeated contact with the Council throughout September and early October. Following her numerous phone calls, Miss Y received a letter on 11 October refusing her appeal.
18. Miss Y complained to the Council on 17 October. The Council responded on 24 November. In summary, it said:
• the main reason for the Council rejecting Miss Y’s appeal was because she did not provide supporting evidence of any current or future care or treatment and evidence of treatments for walking difficulties.
• the Council apologises if Miss Y did not receive a call back as requested.
• the Council apologises if Miss Y had to wait in queues for her calls to be answered.
• the Council did not treat Miss Y’s application in a biased way. The Council makes decisions based on the supporting evidence provided.
• in November 2023 the Council offered to send Miss Y’s appeal and supporting information to an independent assessor to make a decision following an interview and assessment. Miss Y refused this offer.
19. Dissatisfied with the response, Miss Y complained at the second stage of the complaints procedure on 28 November which the Council responded to on 18 February 2024. In summary, this response said:
• the Council upholds Miss Y’s concerns about the way in which it handled her complaint.
• for data protection reasons the Council no longer has a copy of Miss Y’s original application and so cannot comment on the reasons for rejection. However, the appeal information is available and from this it is clear “there is a reasonable cause” for the rejection.
• evidence of appointments for a condition is not evidence of a condition. More specific evidence is needed to understand Miss Y’s condition.
• the offer to refer Miss Y for an independent mobility assessment is an appropriate course of action if other evidence is not clear enough.
• Miss Y has experienced “very poor customer service from the contact centre, Blue Badge team and complaints team”. For the time and trouble this caused, the Council recommended a payment of £180.
• should Miss Y want to proceed with her Blue Badge application, the Council seeks additional medical information or an agreement to receive an independent mobility assessment.
• the Council is undertaking service improvements to review the Blue Badge process and increase capacity and efficiency in the team when dealing with applications and queries. The Council is also making similar improvements within its contact centre.
20. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Miss Y approached the Ombudsman.

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Miss Y?

21. There was procedural fault in the way the Council considered Ms Y’s application. This is because:
• The Council failed to retain a copy of Miss Y’s application for the period during which it was subject to an appeal. Consequently, the Council could not refer to the application during the stage two complaint investigation and the Ombudsman could not consider it either. This creates uncertainty about whether the application was processed correctly as we cannot consider its contents.
• The Council’s refusal letter shows it used outdated criteria when considering Miss Y’s application. Previous government guidance referred to permanent and substantial disabilities. The DfT updated the guidance in 2022 and the Council should now consider whether the applicant has an enduring and substantial disability. There is no evidence the Council considered this in Miss Y’s case.
• Furthermore, the Council based its decision on a requirement to walk up to 50 metres unaided. The current guidance refers to a walking range of 30 to 80 metres. There is no evidence the Council considered this in Miss Y’s case.
• The Council disregarded the supporting evidence provided by Miss Y because it said two of the letters were from her GP rather than the specialists involved in her treatment. However, the letters dated 23 May and 23 August 2023 are signed by a Physiotherapist who confirmed the nature and effect of Miss Y’s condition as well as her ongoing treatment. The DfT guidance confirms a Physiotherapist is a specialist and so the Council should give due regard to the letters provided.
• When responding to our enquiries, the Council said two of the letters provided by Miss Y related to appointments regarding her condition, rather than the effect of the condition. It said that these letters are not acceptable as they do not convey “independent medical advice”. This statement directly contradicts the requests made by the Council in August and November 2023 for Miss Y to provide evidence of future appointments and treatment. The provision of the information about future appointments was a direct result of an officer’s request.
• The officer who responded to Miss Y’s first complaint was named in the complaint. Miss Y says this created a conflict of interest and bias. The Council also delayed significantly when considering the appeal and responding to Miss Y’s concerns, which in turn meant that her original application was deleted from the system. The Council offered a payment for Miss Y’s time and trouble which it will increase in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
• The Council does not currently have a policy outlining its approach to the assessment of Blue Badge applications. This has likely created some confusion amongst officers about the eligibility criteria. The Council’s website: What is a Blue Badge? – Blue Badge – Newham Council also contains outdated information.
22. As a result of the fault outlined above, there is injustice in the form of uncertainty. This is because we cannot say whether Miss Y’s application for a Blue Badge was correctly considered by the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. The Council has already apologised and offered a financial remedy of £180. The Council will increase this to £250 in light of the significant time and trouble caused by its fault. The Council will provide evidence of the payment made to Miss Y within four weeks of our final decision.
24. The Council will contact Miss Y to obtain a copy of her original application. If Miss Y does not have this, the Council should ask her to re-apply and confirm whether it requires any supporting evidence in addition to that already supplied by Miss Y in 2023. The Council will arrange for an officer not previously involved with Miss Y’s case to reassess the application and write to Miss Y with the outcome within four weeks of our final decision.
25. If the decision maker is unable to determine that Miss Y is clearly eligible or ineligible for a Blue Badge, the Council will refer the application to an expert assessor for certification. Due to the significant delays Miss Y has already experienced due to Council fault, the Council will arrange for any referral to be prioritised.
26. Within twelve weeks of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Provide of a copy of the Blue Badge policy which it is currently writing.
• Provide evidence to show the information on its website accurately reflects the contents of the current DfT guidance.
• Provide staff training or a briefing paper to officers responsible for making Blue Badge decisions. The officers should be reminded of the requirements in the current DfT guidance, specifically around enduring disabilities, walking distances and the requirement to accept and consider medical evidence from specialists such as Physiotherapists.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation with a finding of procedural fault causing injustice to Miss Y. In my view, the above listed actions will provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman