Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Ms X’s medical conditions when assessing her application for a blue badge.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her application for a blue badge.
2. Ms X brings this complaint with the support of a representative.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 the complaint and supporting information submitted by Ms X’s representative.
• considered the Council’s assessment of Ms X, and its consideration of the subsequent appeal.
• taken account of relevant legislation;
• offered Ms X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document, and considered the comments made.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

6. The Department for Transport (DfT) has issued guidance to councils for providing ‘blue badges’. The Blue Badge scheme entitles drivers or passengers with mobility problems to park nearer to their destination.
7. The DfT updated its guidance in August 2019 to ensure that difficulties experienced by people with non-visible disabilities are considered by councils when determining the eligibility for blue badges. The revisions to the eligibility criteria mean that councils can now consider a person’s difficulty whilst walking, and during the course of a journey, rather than solely their ability to walk or difficulties caused only by the physical act of walking.

Key facts

8. Ms X has numerous health conditions for which she receives ongoing treatment. She is hearing impaired. She receives the enhanced rate of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) for daily living needs and a standard rate for mobility.
9. In February 2024, Ms X applied to the Council for a blue badge. She provided some evidence of her medical conditions and explained how this, and her hearing impairment impacted on her. The Council conducted a desk-based assessment.
10. I have had sight of the assessment form. The section titled ‘medical diagnoses’ enquires if the applicant has an enduring or substantial disability due to a medical condition. In response, the assessor recorded ‘unsure’.
11. The assessor noted Ms X was at risk due to a hearing impairment, that she had nearly been hit by a bus and that she needed supervision outdoors because of the risks. Ms X was also noted to experience anxiety and was frightened to go out alone. The assessor noted Ms X would be accompanied on outdoor journeys and concluded this to be an effective coping strategy.
12. The assessor concluded Ms X did not meet the eligibility criteria for a blue badge under the criteria ‘hidden disabilities and the application was refused. It wrote to Ms X in February 2024 informing her of its decision.
13. Ms X’s representative appealed the decision saying Ms X has care and support needs and is currently receiving treatment for poor health. She said the decision failed to take account of the impact of Ms X’s health conditions and that she is vulnerable and at risk of harm.
14. The Council considered the appeal and concluded there was no grounds to overturn its original decision. It wrote to Ms X in May 2024, reiterating its position, saying Ms X had coping strategies in place to mitigate the risks posed to her and that she had other senses she could use, for example her sight. It acknowledged Ms X had anxiety but said it did not consider this to be severe or overwhelming, saying it would expect someone suffering significant anxiety to have been referred to a specialist for support and treatment.
15. Ms X’s representative submitted a complaint to this office.

Analysis

16. It is not my role to decide whether Ms X is eligible for a blue badge or give a view about the degree to which she meets the relevant criteria. My role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process in coming to a decision.
17. In this case I find the Council failed to do so.
18. The Council failed to obtain Ms X further information about Ms X’s medical conditions.
19. One key reason for the Council’s decision related to Ms X’s “coping strategies” and that she can be accompanied to reduce the risk. An applicant for a blue badge is not expected to be accompanied, this undermines the purpose of the blue badge scheme. Ms X wants independence, and it is unlikely that someone will always be available to accompany her when she wishes to go out, so this will reduce her independence. The guidance on eligibility refers to applicant's difficulties when unaccompanied. The Council has misinterpreted the guidance here.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. The Council should, within four weeks of the final decision, undertake a fresh assessment of Ms X’s application and obtain further information about her medical conditions.
21. The Council should provide this office with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

22. The Council failed to properly consider Ms X’s application for a blue badge. It failed to make further enquiries about her medical condition.
23. The above recommendations are a suitable way to settle the complaint.
24. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman