Summary: Miss Y complains about the process followed by the Council when considering her application for a Blue Badge. We find there is procedural fault because the Council’s assessment did not consider all the evidence about the physical effects of Miss Y’s medical conditions and any impact on her ability to walk. The Council will apologise and refer Miss Y’s application for a fresh assessment.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a Blue Badge. She says the Council failed to take account of all her medical conditions and the combined impact of those conditions, both in terms of her physical and non-physical health.

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 considered the information provided by Miss Y and the Council’s response to her review request.
5. We made enquiries of the Council and 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 received before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. 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.
9. Since August 2019 the guidance includes assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
10. 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.
11. The guidance says councils must ensure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation.
12. There are two types of eligibility criteria:
1. where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge; or
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.
13. 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.
14. The Council’s Blue Badge scheme says that applicants requiring further assessment must provide supporting evidence of their enduring and substantial disability, medical history, behaviour difficulties and coping strategies.

What happened

15. Miss Y applied to the Council for a Blue Badge in October 2023. The application form shows that Miss Y applied under the ‘combined hidden and walking criteria’. Within the application Miss Y listed several medical issues which she says hinder her ability to walk. Some of those medical issues are physical in nature and some are psychological. Miss Y provided several pieces of medical evidence.
• Hospital letter from a specialist doctor dated 23 May 2022 to confirm the outcome of gastrointestinal investigations.
• Hospital letter from a consultant dated 26 July 2023 which provided an explanation of Miss Y’s physical symptoms relating to a gastrointestinal disorder. The letter also outlined the consultant’s intention to perform a procedure on Miss Y in the ‘near future’.
• Second letter from the same consultant on 20 September 2023 to confirm the outcome of the recent procedure performed on Miss Y. The letter also explained other possible medical problems which the consultant suggested that Miss Y should be tested for.
• GP letter from 1 September 2023 explaining the nature of Miss Y’s medical conditions, the pain she experiences and the impact on her daily life.
• Medical print out of Miss Y’s medical history and prescribed medication.
• Confirmation of Miss Y’s attendance at counselling sessions in 2023 to discuss the impact of her physical health concerns.
16. As Miss Y did not meet the criteria for automatic eligibility, the Council referred her application for consideration by an Independent Expert Assessor. A telephone assessment went ahead on 16 January 2024.
17. The assessment document provided by the Council is entitled “Assessment tool for applicants with hidden disabilities”. The completed document showed the assessor considered whether Miss Y had, “Difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress”.
18. The Council responded to Miss Y on 18 January 2024 to confirm its decision not to award a Blue Badge. It said the “provision of a Blue Badge is not the only or most effective coping strategy to enable you [Miss Y] to access goods and services in the community”.
19. Miss Y appealed the Council’s decision. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the outcome and explained the impact of her medical conditions on her ability to walk long distances and the need to park her car close to toilet facilities.
20. The Council responded on 20 February 2024. The letter said:

“Looking further into your application and appeal, you had made an application for a blue badge under the non-visible (hidden) disability criteria. Under the Department for Transport guidance, you do not meet the eligibility criteria. Therefore, you were put forward for further assessment with our independent expert assessors”.

21. After reviewing the original application, assessment document and supporting evidence, the Council maintained its decision not to award a Blue Badge.
22. Miss Y complained to the Ombudsman.

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

23. When applying for a Blue Badge, the website asks applicants to select the main reason for needing a badge. The three possible options are:
• I find walking very difficult (needing mobility aids, experiencing excessive pain or breathlessness);
• I experience psychological distress when walking or on journeys;
• I am a risk near vehicles or in traffic (for example, lacking awareness or unable to control actions); or
• It is a combination of walking difficulties and psychological reasons which cases me to need a Blue Badge.
24. Miss Y’s application shows she selected the fourth option: a combination of walking difficulties and psychological reasons. Miss Y provided supporting medical evidence which outlined both her physical difficulties and the psychological impact.
25. The DfT guidance says:

“It is important that local authorities give both physical and non-visible (‘hidden’) enduring and substantial disabilities which cause walking difficulty due consideration when determining an applicant’s eligibility in relation to the ‘subject to further assessment’ criteria”.

“… the ‘subject to further assessment’ criteria are not mutually exclusive, and that an individual’s eligibility to receive a badge may need to be assessed in relation to more than one criterion (for example, in cases where physical walking difficulties also cause or are accompanied by very considerable psychological distress and/or risk of harm to the applicant/others)”

26. When the Ombudsman received and assessed Miss Y’s complaint we wrote to the Council and invited it to reconsider her application. This is because the assessment document did not show the assessor had considered the difficulties Miss Y experiences from both the physical and non-physical aspects of her medical conditions.
27. The Council responded to our proposal and said that, whilst Miss Y had applied under the combined criteria, the assessor decided that she had not provided evidence of a physical condition that is likely to affect her mobility. The Council explained the assessor did consider Miss Y’s reports of feeling faint, but this in itself did not justify the completion of a physical disability assessment.
28. I find fault with the procedure followed by the Council when assessing Miss Y’s eligibility. Although the Council maintains that Miss Y did not provide evidence of the physical effects of her conditions, the files I have reviewed show that Miss Y provided information to show she experiences significant physical discomfort:

“[Miss Y] grapples with a complex combination of medical conditions that have a profound impact on her day-to-day life. Her IBS symptoms, characterised by bloating and constipation, cause persistent discomfort and unpredictability, making it difficult for her to maintain a routine and carry out her daily activities”.

“[Miss Y] is currently being investigated by Gynaecology for her severe lower abdominal pain… Due to her pain she is unable to carry out daily activities and needs help. She rarely goes out now due to the level of pain she is experiencing, and she continues to struggle considerably and is having a significant impact on her day-to-day function”.

29. While it is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide whether someone is eligible for a Blue Badge, we can identify if there has been fault in the application and assessment process which causes injustice to the person affected. In Miss Y’s case, the Council told her on 20 February 2024 that she had only applied under the hidden criteria. This was incorrect. The Council now says that Miss Y did apply under the combined criteria but did not present any evidence relating to her physical issues, other than episodes of feeling faint.
30. The medical letters I have reviewed show that Miss Y experiences pain as well as dizziness. This point was not considered by the assessor and so it raises questions about whether relevant supporting information was properly considered. Consequently, there is uncertainty as to whether the Council reached the correct conclusion when considering Miss Y’s application.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• refer Miss Y’s case to an Independent Expert Assessor who has not previously considered Miss Y’s application. The assessor will review Miss Y’s request for a Blue Badge using the combined criteria for physical and hidden disabilities. When doing so, the assessor will ensure it takes account of all relevant medical evidence;
• if applicable, waive any Blue Badge administration fee if Miss Y is found to be eligible; and
• apologise to Miss Y for the time and trouble caused by the fault.
32. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation with a finding of procedural fault causing injustice for the reasons explained in this statement. The actions listed above will provide an appropriate 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