Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered Mr B’s blue badge application. Although it disregarded some evidence, it has fully explained why it did so. In the absence of any fault in the Council’s decision-making, we have no power to question the decision itself.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, was awarded a disabled parking badge (a ‘blue badge’) by the Council in 2021. However, when he applied to renew the badge in late 2023, the Council rejected the application.
2. Mr B complains that, in doing so, the Council repeatedly changed its criteria and ignored medical evidence from his GP. He says he also has a maximum personal independence payment (PIP) award, which shows the severity of his mental health difficulties.
3. Mr B says the denial of the badge has caused him distress. He says without it he cannot leave the house without suffering severe symptoms of his mental health condition.

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 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)
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 B and the Council. Both 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 Council’s responsibilities

7. The government provides ‘best practice’ guidance to councils on how to process applications for blue badges. This includes guidance on dealing with people who have ‘hidden’ disabilities.
8. In order to qualify for a badge, an applicant with hidden disabilities must provide evidence that they experience very considerable difficulty while walking (which may include very considerable psychological distress). This may arise during a journey rather than because of the physical act of walking.
9. If it is not obvious to a council that an applicant qualifies for a badge, it should refer them to an expert assessor.

What happened

10. Mr B applied to renew his badge in December 2023. He set out why, because of his mental health issues, he needed the badge.
11. The Council refused the application (having referred to it an expert assessor). It said it was not satisfied that the level of psychological distress Mr B experienced justified a badge.
12. Mr B appealed in March 2024, and, again, the Council referred the matter to an expert assessor. At this point Mr B had provided the following evidence:
• Confirmation of his diagnoses and medication.
• Confirmation of his benefits.
• A letter confirming that he was referred for psychiatric assessment in 2017.
• A standardised form, dated 2020, from a mental health professional who set out Mr B’s difficulties but said they were ‘unsure’ whether these caused him very considerable difficulty walking.
• A letter of support from his local councillor.
• A letter of support from his GP, saying the blue badge meant Mr B “feels more confident when he is out and about and he is not fearful of getting out of the house”.
• A standardised form from his GP. This said the GP had seen Mr B in 2014, and a colleague had seen him in 2023. The form also said that, on every journey, Mr B suffers:

… significant distress when leaving the house [which] causes him physical symptoms … mental distress in going out / visiting places … [and] an overwhelming sense of fear of public / open / busy spaces.

13. The independent assessor considered the evidence Mr B had provided. They acknowledged his diagnoses, medication and benefits. However, they dismissed the medical evidence from 2020 and beforehand (because of age) and the councillor’s letter (because it was not medical evidence).
14. The assessor also rejected the information Mr B’s GP provided in the standardised form, because the GP “sees the applicant ‘less frequently’ and therefore it is reasonable to suggest that the GP does not know the applicant or his symptoms well”.
15. The assessor recommended that the Council reject Mr B’s appeal. In doing so, they noted that he was not receiving specialist psychiatric support. They also noted that:

[There is] no evidence of any current behavioural problems … No formal medical evidence to suggest that he cannot … undertake a journey either from a cognitive or psychological reason … [and] a lack of up-to-date medical evidence to support his application. Mental health fluctuates and there is insufficient medical evidence to provide a true reflection of his current presentation and functioning.

16. The Council wrote to Mr B in April, rejecting his appeal.
17. Since I started my investigation, the Council has provided more information about the expert assessor’s reasoning. It says:
• The GP last saw Mr B in 2014. His colleague did so in September 2023. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that the GP did not have a full and up to date understanding of Mr B’s needs and was relying on consultation notes from his colleagues.
• Even if the GP evidence had been taken into account, Mr B would still not have scored sufficient points to qualify for a blue badge.

My findings

18. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether someone should have a blue badge or not. This is for a council to decide.
19. However, we do expect councils to follow the right procedure when making decisions. This includes proper consideration of medical evidence.
20. There was nothing obviously wrong with most of what the Council said about the evidence Mr B provided in support of his application. It was entitled to decide that old medical evidence (and evidence which was not medical at all) was unconvincing.
21. Although Mr B’s GP evidence was completely rejected by the Council – which led to it reaching conclusions which are directly contradicted by the medical evidence the GP provided – the Council has provided an explanation for why it took this view.
22. The Council’s explanation demonstrates that it has given this matter full consideration. With this in mind – and in the absence of anything in the Council’s decision-making which appears obviously unreasonable – I have no power to question the refusal decision itself.
23. Consequently, I have found no fault with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

24. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman