Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision that Mr X was ineligible for a Blue Badge. There was a delay in considering Mr X’s appeal against the refusal which caused additional anxiety for Mr X which the Council will now acknowledge.

The complaint

1. Mr X (as I shall call him) complains that the Council failed to consider his specific disability when it refused his application for a Blue Badge. He also complains about the delay in considering his appeal against the refusal which caused him additional anxiety.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 all the information provided by Mr X and by the Council. Both Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement and I considered their comments before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

5. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) 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 the badge.
6. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities. Very considerable psychological distress has been included as an example of the kind of difficulty an individual may experience when they are walking during the course of a journey, which can be unrelated to their physical ability to walk.
7. The guidance says, “It is considered good practice for Blue Badge application processes to allow for 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…

explain how they experience very severe or overwhelming anxiety (for example, through hypervigilance)

explain how they experience an overwhelming sense of fear of public/open/busy spaces

explain why they avoid some/all types of journeys due to the kinds of experiences listed above”.

8. The DfT 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.
9. 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 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.

What happened

11. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge due to very difficult psychological distress when walking. His application noted he became extremely anxious and fearful in public spaces. He said as well as a mental illness he had a brain cyst and an injured knee. He said he currently travelled everywhere with his wife.
12. An assessor spoke to Mr X in October 2023. The assessor awarded Mr X 2 points (1 each for enduring and substantial disability, and risk of harm to himself when walking) out of the 3 points required to achieve a Blue Badge. She did not award any points for a Blue Badge as the most effective coping strategy.
13. The Council wrote to Mr X and explained that his application had been unsuccessful as “Provision of a Blue Badge is not the only or most effective coping strategy to enable you to access goods and services in the community.”
14. Mr X appealed against the decision at the end of October. He said the assessor had omitted key phrases he had used - “For example, I told the assessor that I am very anxious to run in the park without my carer as I think every stranger is a potential distress. She did not write it in anywhere in the assessment. She rephrased this version by saying that I can run” – and rephrased others to suggest he was more able than he was. He said he had told her he became very confused if he was outside without his wife: the assessor had written he needed his wife present for comfort.
15. The Council says there was a problem with the system which registered appeals. It says, “The online form for submitting appeals was experiencing technical issues whereby on occasions the back office was not receiving the appeals.”
16. Mr X complained to the Council in January that he had not heard about this appeal.
17. As a result the Council did not write to Mr X with the outcome of his appeal until February 2024. The Council said Mr X did not meet the eligibility requirements in the guidance. The assessor’s report had indicated Mr X had reported that travelling with his wife or children helped his anxiety. It was concluded the Blue Badge was not therefore the most effective coping strategy.
18. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. He said the assessor had deliberately excluded words from her report which would have made him more likely to be eligible.
19. The assessor says that although Mr X applied via the hidden disability pathway, she also documented evidence appropriate to his physical function as he might have been eligible via that route. She says “The statements regarding running in the park were recorded accurately based on the information provided during the assessment. The ability to run, whether with a carer or independently, does not impact eligibility for a Blue Badge”. She says she included details of neurological input but says that was not critical to the decision.
20. The assessor adds,” (Mr X) indicated that his anxiety and difficulties when going out are alleviated when accompanied by his wife or daughter. He mentioned that his wife is "always" with him during appointments and that he generally needs someone with him when travelling …. The coping strategy, based on (Mr X’s) responses, suggests that travelling with another person is effective in managing his anxiety.”

Analysis

21. The records I have seen show the assessor took into consideration the points made by Mr X. There is no evidence she deliberately excluded information to bias the decision. There is therefore no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
22. Mr X says he is unable to walk even 50 metres without his carer, and it is unfair to claim that he is coping in those circumstances. But the assessment was that the award of a Blue Badge would not be the most effective coping strategy for Mr X who would still require to be accompanied.
23. There was an unacceptable delay in contacting Mr X about the appeal, which caused additional anxiety and distress. The Council has apologised for that but should go further to recognise the impact of the delay.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. Within one month of my final decision the Council will pay £250 to Mr X to recognise that the delay in responding to his appeal caused some additional anxiety.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have found there was some injustice caused to Mr X by the delay in responding to his appeal which the recommendation at paragraph 24 will remedy.. There was no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it reached the decision about the Blue Badge application.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman