Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled Mr X’s application for a disabled parking badge. It considered the information available, processed the application in accordance with the government’s best practice guidance and made a decision which, in the circumstances, was not obviously unreasonable. As there was no procedural fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s application, I cannot question its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr Y, complains on behalf of his adult son, Mr X.
2. Mr X is severely autistic and had a disabled parking badge (routinely referred to as a ‘blue badge’) for almost thirty years.
3. However, Mr Y complains that the Council recently refused to reissue Mr X’s badge. He says the Council did not properly consider the information he provided about Mr X’s difficulties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way a council made its decision. If there was no fault in how the council made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’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

6. I considered:
• Information from Mr Y and the Council.
• The government’s blue badge scheme best practice guidance.
7. Mr Y 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

The blue badge guidance

8. Someone may be issued with a blue badge after further assessment if they:
• Experience very considerable difficulty while walking (which may include very considerable psychological distress). For people with hidden disabilities, this may arise during a journey rather than because of the physical act of walking.
• May be at risk of serious harm when walking or may pose a risk of serious harm to other people.
9. If it is not obvious to a council that an applicant falls into one of these categories, it should refer them to an expert assessor, such as an occupational therapist (who would specialise in assessing a wide range of conditions, including physical, learning or mental health difficulties).
10. When considering whether someone suffers psychological distress during a journey, a council should allow them to:
• Explain how their condition affects them while walking.
• Identity any coping strategies they use.
• Provide the details of any treatment or medication they receive.
• Provide medical and other supporting evidence.
11. When a disability is hidden, a risk of serious harm could arise in various ways, such as by the person disobeying, ignoring or being unaware of clear instructions.
12. Councils need to be satisfied that applicants’ difficulties cannot be managed with reasonable coping strategies. For example, if an applicant would only ever be accompanied by another person – and this would mitigate their very considerable difficulties – a badge would not help them.
13. Councils will need evidence from health or social care professionals involved in the care of an applicant to confirm the difficulties they experience when walking.

What happened

14. In November 2023, Mr Y applied for a renewal of Mr X’s blue badge. He said:
• Mr X had severe autism and severe learning and communication difficulties.
• He could not go anywhere in the community without a carer present. He had no understanding of traffic danger and could not cross the road or walk around a car park safely without assistance.
• However, with the right assistance he could be kept safe.
• He could not travel on public transport because he got distressed at even the slightest delay.
15. Mr Y provided a benefits letter which said Mr X could not follow a journey on his own but, with support, could understand verbal and written information.
16. Mr Y also provided a letter from an occupational therapist which said Mr X needed one-to-one support in the community and could not cross the road or walk around car parks on his own.
17. The Council’s expert assessor looked at Mr X’s application in December. They said there was no medical evidence of Mr X’s diagnosis, so it was difficult to assess whether he had a condition which caused him difficulty.

18. The Council wrote to Mr Y in January 2024 and rejected his application.
19. Mr Y appealed. He said Mr X received no medication for his condition and therefore was not seen regularly by a GP or any other medical professional. But he provided a ‘summary sheet’ from Mr X’s GP which showed that Mr X had a diagnosis of autism and this was classed as ‘severe’.
20. In February, a different expert assessor (an occupational therapist) considered
    Mr X’s appeal. They accepted the evidence of Mr X’s diagnosis, and they took account of the information Mr Y had provided about Mr X’s lack of danger awareness and his difficulties with public transport.
21. However, the assessor also noted that:
• Mr X’s benefits letters did not say he suffered any psychological distress while following a journey – he just needed assistance.
• The letter also said that, although he needed support, he could follow clear instructions and prompts.
22. The assessor scored Mr X’s appeal higher than his original application had been scored. But the Council still rejected the appeal. It said there was not enough evidence to suggest he fit the eligibility criteria in the guidance.

My findings

23. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether someone should be eligible for a blue badge. Instead, we must decide whether there was any procedural fault in how a council made a blue badge decision.
24. The Council:
• Referred Mr X’s application to a suitable expert assessor.
• Gave Mr Y the opportunity to explain how Mr X’s condition affected him in the community, and included that explanation in its consideration.
• Sought medical evidence from Mr Y.
• Clearly considered the evidence provided in Mr X’s GP summary, and in the benefits and occupational therapy letters.
• Noted that Mr X’s difficulties could be mitigated with the support of a carer, who would always be with him whether he had a blue badge or not.
25. As a result, I am satisfied that the Council followed the government’s best practice guidance and was responsible for no procedural fault.
26. In the absence of any such fault – and as the Council’s decision was not, in the circumstances, obviously unreasonable – I have no power to question that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

27. The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Mr X’s blue badge application and appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman