Summary: Ms C complains the Council has failed to renew her Blue Badge application. The Council is at fault for delay, and failing to provide proper reasons for rejecting Ms C’s review. This has caused Ms C uncertainty about whether the Council has properly considered her review request and her time and trouble in escalating her complaint. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C, and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms C complains the Council has failed to properly consider her Blue Badge renewal. As a result she has lost her independence and confidence and it has affected her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. I have considered:-
• Ms C’s complaint, her application for a Blue Badge and the supporting documentation she provided the Council;
• the Council’s responses and independent mobility assessment tool;
• the law and guidance applicable to the complaint.
5. Ms C 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

What should have happened

6. The Department for Transport (DfT) has issued, “Blue Badge scheme local authority guidance (England)” 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 deciding the eligibility for Blue Badges. To qualify for a Blue Badge, an applicant must be assessed by their council as either ‘eligible without further assessment’, or ‘eligible subject to further assessment’.
8. The guidance says that people may be issued with a badge, following further assessment, if they are:
• “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 very considerable difficulty whilst 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 any other person”
9. Paragraph 4.58 of the DfT guidance says “It is considered good practice for Blue Badge application processes to allow for 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
• provide any relevant supporting evidence, for example such as: diagnosis letters, care plans, patient summaries, education health and care (EHC) plans or disability benefits
• explain how they experience very severe or overwhelming anxiety (for example, through hypervigilance)
• explain how they experience an overwhelming sense of fear of public/open/busy spaces
• explain why they avoid some/all types of journeys due to the kinds of experiences listed above.”
10. Paragraph 4.64 says, “Local authorities will also need to be satisfied that such difficulties cannot otherwise be managed through reasonable coping strategies. For example, where an applicant would only ever be accompanied by another person and that negates ‘very considerable’ difficulty, a badge would not help the applicant.”
11. If the Council decides not to issue a Blue Badge, the regulations say it must notify the applicant, in writing, of the reasons for refusal. The DfT ‘strongly recommends’ that every applicant is given a ‘detailed explanation’ of the grounds for refusal. Councils should not simply state in their refusal letter that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria.
12. The guidance goes on to say: “DfT recommends that in such situations there should be provision for the dissatisfied applicant’s case to be reviewed by the issuing authority, preferably by someone who was not directly involved in the initial decision”. When reviewing applications, the Ombudsman expects councils to adhere to our guidance, ‘the Principles of Good Administrative Practice’ which says that councils should keep proper and accurate records and give reasons for their decisions. They should have clear and accessible appeal routes and provide timely advice on how and when to appeal or complain.

What happened

13. Ms C has difficulties with her mental health and on this basis the Council awarded her a Blue Badge under the hidden disabilities criteria in 2019. Ms C applied to renew her Blue Badge. The Council rejected the application on 28 November 2023. This was on the basis Ms C’s difficulties could be mitigated by someone accompanying her.
14. Ms C asked the Council to review the decision on 30 November. The Council responded on 28 March 2024 asking for further medical information. On 16 May the Council told Ms C independent assessors would consider her application but it could take up to 12 weeks.
15. We received the independent assessor’s report in response to our initial enquiries. The summary evidences the assessor spoke with Ms C’s representative. The assessor weighed up the medical information received, Ms C’s account of her difficulties and how they affected her, against what they found in the assessment. This included:-
• Ms C can independently both shop and care for her daughter at quieter times at the supermarket;
• Ms C has coping strategies and self management techniques to help her when she gets anxious. This includes removing herself from crowded places;
• Ms C can go for walks independently with her child, family, and her mother.
16. On this basis the assessor did not consider Ms C was eligible for a Blue Badge. The Council told Ms C based on the independent assessor report she remained unentitled to a Blue Badge but provided no reasons for the decision in its letter.

Was there fault causing injustice?

17. 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.
18. The Council provided Ms C with a reasoned explanation for rejecting her Blue Badge application on the basis her psychological distress could be mitigated by someone accompanying her. This does not appear to be in line with DfT guidance as it suggests no one with a hidden disability would be entitled to a Blue Badge if they can go out with another person. If this is the case the Council would be fettering its discretion, which is procedural fault.
19. While I have found fault with this part of the complaint Ms C was not caused injustice as her application was considered further at the review stage.
20. I have found no procedural fault in the Council’s decision based on the assessor’s report. The assessor considered the available information and made a balanced decision.
21. However there was a delay of nearly four months until the Council processed Ms C's review. This delay amounts to fault. The failure to provide written reasons for the rejection is also not in line with DfT guidance or that of the Ombudsman and is fault. Ms C has the uncertainty and frustration her application review was not properly considered.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. I have found fault by the Council which has caused injustice. I consider the actions below are suitable to remedy the injustice caused to Ms C and to improve future services.
23. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:-
1. apologise to Ms C for her time and trouble in escalating her complaint to the Ombudsman and delay;
2. provide Ms C with a written reasoned review decision.
24. Within three months of the decision the Council will:-
1. review the Council’s policy on how it considers people who have hidden disabilities but can go out if accompanied; to ensure it is in line with DfT guidance and the Council is not fettering its discretion;
2. review procedures to ensure review outcomes are properly reasoned; and
3. review why there was a delay in dealing with the review request and produce a plan about how it intends to reduce future delay.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I consider there was fault by the Council which has caused Ms C uncertainty. I consider the actions above are suitable to remedy the complaint. I have ended my investigation and closed the complaint on this basis.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman