Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to properly consider her hidden disabilities when refusing her Blue Badge application. We found the Council to be at fault because it did not use the relevant assessment tool when making its initial decision. However, the personal injustice to Mrs X was limited because the Council corrected this mistake at the review stage. The Council has agreed with out recommendation to apologise to Mrs X and review its practices.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 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)
4. 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

5. I have considered all the information Mrs X provided and discussed this complaint with her. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
6. Mrs X and the Council were invited to comment on my draft decision before I made my final decision. All comments received were taken into consideration.

Relevant law and guidance

The Blue Badge Scheme

7. The Blue Badge Scheme allows people with disabilities to park close to their destination by displaying a blue badge in their car window.
8. 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:

Eligible subject to further assessment

9. If a person is not automatically eligible for a badge, as was the case with Mrs X, 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.
10. 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

11. 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; and
• 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.

12. 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; and
• assessment approaches are a matter for the council to decide.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

13. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
14. Mrs X applied for a Blue Badge in July 2023. She suffers with, amongst other things, chronic fatigue syndrome, back pain and anxiety. She says her anxiety is heightened when unable to park near her destination. She has a panic attack if things do not go to plan or if there are too many cars or people around her.
15. Accompanying her application, she provided medical evidence confirming her various diagnoses and ongoing treatment. She told the Council about the difficulties she faced when trying to leave her home. She also explained the benefits a Blue Badge would give her.
16. Her application was unsuccessful. The Council made its decision based on written information provided by Miss X. The Council said it did not feel it necessary to conduct a face-to face assessment, particularly as this could exacerbate her anxiety.
17. She was told:

• her conditions did not impact her mobility to a substantial level to make her eligible for a Blue Badge; and
• she was awaiting therapeutic input that may improve her walking ability or condition management. This meant the Council was unable to determine that her conditions would impact her to a substantial level for the life of the badge (3 years).

18. Mrs X requested a review of this decision. The original decision was upheld.
19. The Council’s review concluded, in addition to the previous reasons given:

• there was no evidence Mrs X was unable to access the community;
• provision of a Blue Badge would be counterproductive; and
• due to the intermittent and variable nature of Mrs X’s symptoms, it was unable to determine the impact of the conditions over a three year period.

20. Mrs X believed the assessor had failed to acknowledge the impact of her hidden disabilities or make appropriate enquiries. She made formal complaint to the Council. This was not upheld. Disappointed by this outcome, and the Council’s unfair treatment of people with hidden disabilities, Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
21. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries the Council:

• offered Mrs X a face-to-face assessment;
• explained all assessments were carried out by clinically qualified personnel. In reaching their decisions they use clinical reasoning and best proactive (including NICE guideline on hidden disabilities); and
• the onus is on the applicant to provide relevant evidence in support of their application.

22. In July 2024, Mrs X attended a face-to-face assessment. She told the Ombudsman she felt the assessor had a good understanding of her condition.
23. Shortly afterwards she was told the Council’s decision remained the same.

Analysis

24. The Ombudsman’s role is not to decide whether Mrs X is eligible for a Blue Badge or give a view about the degree to which she meets the relevant criteria. Our role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process in coming to a decision.

Initial decision

25. In Mrs X’s application, she provided clear evidence that she was applying, in the most part, on the basis or her hidden disabilities. Because of this, the Council should be able to demonstrate it took into consideration relevant factors set out in the Gudance (paragraphs 11 and 12).
26. However, the Council’s standard assessment tool did not allow the assessor to consider relevant criteria on hidden disabilities. Instead, the assessment tool referred solely to physical conditions.
27. The only reference to hidden disabilities was in the in the assessor’s notes where she said the application had been assessed under both, “walking and hidden criteria”. Despite, this statement, I have seen no evidence of any hidden disability criteria being applied, either in the assessment tool, nor the decision letter.
28. In the absence of such evidence, I am not persuaded they were. This was fault.

Review decision

29. In accordance with good practice, Mrs X’s review was carried out by a different assessor. However, this assessor used a different assessment tool to that used previously, entitled “Non - visible applications”. This allowed the assessor to consider factors the Ombudsman would expect to see, such as level of anxiety, frequency of episodes and the use of strategies to allow safe community access.
30. This relevant assessment tool was should have been used by the first assessor. This affirms my view there was fault with the first decision.
31. However, based on the evidence I have seen shows there was no further fault. This is because the review decision was in line with the Guidance.
32. The review assessment took account of all the relevant factors, including the impact of Mrs X’s hidden disabilities and the variability of her conditions. There is no doubt that Mrs X’s conditions make walking difficult for her, and this was recognised by the Council. But the Council was entitled to decide that these difficulties were not significant enough to qualify for a Blue Badge.
33. This view was endorsed by the assessor who carried out the face-to-face assessment.
34. Overall, I am satisfied that Mrs X was given the opportunity to accurately explain her conditions and the impact they have on her day-to-day life. The Council was entitled to reach the conclusion that provision of a Blue Badge would be counterproductive to Mrs X.
35. Although I appreciate Mrs X strongly disagrees with this, this was the professional opinion of an appropriately qualified clinician based on relevant evidence. The Ombudsman has no role in questioning the merits of such decisions.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise in writing to Mrs X for the injustice caused by the fault in its initial decision. I will not recommend the Council reconsider Mrs X’s application because I am satisfied it followed the correct procedure during the review stage.
2. Review its assessment procedures to ensure all Blue Badge applications involving a hidden disability are assessed using the relevant assessment tool at both the initial application and review stages of the process.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I intend have completed my investigation. I found the Council to have acted with fault and the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman