Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to follow government guidance on assessing blue badge applicants who have hidden disabilities. Its expert assessment was a cursory email which did not allow Mr X the chance to explain how his mental health conditions may mean he suffers very considerable psychological distress when walking. The Council will apologise, make Mr X a symbolic payment to reflect his avoidable distress and reconsider his application having regard to relevant parts of the government guidance.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused to renew his blue badge. He said this caused avoidable distress because previously he could park in a disabled bay and this helped his mental health condition.

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)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. Navigo Health and Social Care Community Interest Company provides council mental health services in North East Lincolnshire. We can investigate it.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the complaint to us, the Council’s responses to the complaint and documents described in this statement.
7. 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

Relevant law and guidance:

8. The Blue Badge Scheme allows people with disabilities to park close to their destination by displaying a blue badge in their car window.
9. Government guidance (the Guidance) is non-statutory; so councils do not have to follow it, but most councils, including this one, do. I have summarised relevant parts of the Guidance below:

Automatic eligibility

10. A person qualifies for a blue badge without further assessment (automatically) if they receive the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and have scored:
• eight points or more under the ‘moving around’ descriptor or
• ten points under ‘planning/following journeys’ descriptor because they are unable to undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress. The applicant’s decision letter from the DWP must say they “cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress. (10 points). No other descriptor will qualify.”

Eligible subject to further assessment

11. If a person is not automatically eligible for a badge, they may be eligible ‘subject to further assessment’ if they have a hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking. They must have been 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 considerable difficulty 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 others. If it is not obvious, the council should make a referral to an expert assessor.

Assessing hidden disabilities including applicants with mental health problems

12. The Guidance describes good practice for blue badge application processes when councils are determining whether the applicant has very considerable psychological distress while walking during a journey. Processes should allow people to:
• explain in their own words how their disability affects them whilst walking
• respond to closed experiential questions about how their disability affects them whilst walking
• identity any coping strategies they use, and how effectively these work in practice
• document any treatment or medication they receive to help them manage their condition
• identify the names and contact details of any health or social care practitioners involved in their diagnosis and ongoing treatment and provide any relevant supporting evidence
• explain how they experience very severe or overwhelming anxiety (for example, through hypervigilance), an overwhelming sense of fear of public/open/busy spaces or why they avoid some/all types of journeys.
13. The Guidance says:
• If a person can use coping strategies, like being accompanied by another person on journeys and this negates any walking difficulty, then councils can refuse an application because a blue badge would not help the applicant. Journey avoidance should not be considered an appropriate coping strategy.
• Assessment approaches are a matter for the council to decide.

What happened

Background

14. Mr X had a blue badge which expired in December 2023. He qualified automatically because of his PIP award at the time.
15. Mr X said in correspondence that he currently receives higher rate PIP mobility, with 4 points for the moving around descriptor and 12 points for the planning/following journeys descriptor.
16. With his complaint to us, Mr X sent a copy of the first page of a DWP PIP award letter dated January 2023. This says he receives PIP at the enhanced rate for mobility. The extract of the letter he has provided doesn’t say what his points are or how long the award is for.

November 2023

17. Mr X applied to the Council to renew his blue badge as it was due to expire.
18. An internal email between council officers said Mr X “was an automatic qualifier for his last Hidden Blue Badge [sic] however he gets too many points now under planning and following a journey so has to go through the full application process.”
19. A Navigo associate social work consultant said in an email “My opinion is he is not suffering from overwhelming psychological distress, he has attended appointments without his partner (well it is not documented his partner has been with him.) I feel a blue badge for psychological distress is not met at this time.”

December 2023

20. Mr X complained to the Council. The Council’s response said:
• The DWP letter he sent was dated October 2021 and stated his award was from March 2021 to December 2023 so it could only issue a badge until December 2023.
• He now received 12 points for planning and 4 points for moving around. These points mean he is not automatically eligible for a blue badge and has to fill out an application form.
• The Multi-Disciplinary Panel discussed his application. The guidance says “where the presence of someone supporting the applicant negates the risk or prevents the psychological distress, then the person is unlikely to qualify”
21. The Council’s response to the complaint said:
• The last time Mr X applied in 2022 he provided his Personal Independent Payment award letter which showed he received the relevant number of points under ‘PIP’ to be an automatic qualifier for a Blue Badge. This time, as his point score in the planning and following a journey section of ‘PIP’ has changed, he was re-directed to fill in a detailed application form
• Having checked through all emails sent, at this point he had not been told he was not eligible for a badge under the non-visible ‘hidden’ application process. However he did not automatically qualify for a badge as his PIP score had now changed and it needed further evidence.
• Automatic qualifying Blue Badges are issued for the length of time the Award has been issued (up to three years) in his case the previous PIP award was issued until 8 December which is when the badge was issued till.

January 2024

22. Mr X complained to the Council again saying it was wrong to refuse his application. He said he has 12 points under planning/ following a journey and his PIP award had not changed. He went on to say he was not safe to others or himself if he had to park in a standard bay due to his mental health.
23. The Council responded saying it had not retained any documents from Mr X’s last application and he needed to contact the LGSCO if he remained unhappy.
24. The Council told us “expert advice was received from Navigo which didn’t support the application”.

Was there fault?

The Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s blue badge application on automatic grounds

25. Mr X says his previous PIP award and current award have not changed. He suggests the Council may have made an error in giving him a blue badge automatically last year. As the Council has not retained the DWP award letter it relied on when it awarded the blue badge, I cannot say whether this is correct or not. The award letter Mr X has provided does not contain this information either.
26. The Council applied the Guidance when it said Mr X was not automatically eligible for a blue badge in response to his recent application and so I do not uphold this part of the complaint. This is because Mr X’s current award does not score 10 points on the moving/planning descriptor and the Guidance specifically says the PIP award letter must say 10 points. Mr X has confirmed he has 12 points. So he isn’t automatically eligible.

The Council’s decision to refuse the application ‘subject to further assessment’

27. The Council has not dealt with Mr X’s application properly under the discretionary criteria I have set out in paragraph 12. The short email from Navigo does not evidence the assessor followed a process which allowed Mr X to explain how his disability affected him while walking, explain any anxiety, fear, avoidance strategies or coping strategies or document any treatment he received. While the Council is free to adopt its own processes to assess an application, in this case the consideration of Mr X’s application and his individual circumstances was cursory. This was fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with Navigo, I have made recommendations to the Council.
29. The purpose of our remedies is to try and put the person into the position they would have been in if the fault had not happened. It is not our role to make a decision about Mr X’s eligibility for a blue badge. This is a decision for the Council.
30. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• Apologise, in line with our published guidance, for the avoidable distress;
• Make Mr X a payment of £100 to reflect his avoidable distress;
• Reconsider Mr X’s application in line the Guidance I have set out in paragraph 12. An expert assessor will need to speak with Mr X to do this properly and allow him time to submit further relevant evidence; and
• Issue a fresh decision in writing. If the decision is Mr X is not eligible, the letter should set out why he does not meet the applicable criteria. The decision should demonstrate the Council has assessed the case in line with the Guidance in paragraph 12.
31. The Council should provide us with written evidence it has complied with the above actions. This needs to include a copy of the reconsideration of Mr X’s application.

Back to top

Final decision

32. The Council was at fault. It failed to follow government guidance on assessing blue badge applicants who have hidden disabilities. Its expert assessment was a cursory two-line email which did not allow Mr X the chance to explain how his mental health conditions may mean he suffered very considerable psychological distress when walking affected his ability to walk. The Council will apologise, make Mr X a symbolic payment to reflect his avoidable distress and reconsider his application having regard to relevant parts of the government guidance.
33. I completed the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman