Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her application for a blue badge. We find the Council failed to follow government guidance when considering the distance Ms X walked during her first assessment. The Council also failed to follow the guidance on assessing blue badge applicants who have hidden disabilities. The Council will apologise and reconsider Ms X’s application having regard to the relevant parts of the government guidance.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her application for a blue badge. Ms X says this has caused her significant distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered the information she provided. I considered the Council’s response to the complaint and information it provided in response to our initial enquiries.
5. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to respond to my draft decision. I considered any comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance:

6. The blue badge scheme is to help disabled people with severe mobility problems access goods and services by allowing them to park near their destination. The scheme provides parking concessions for blue badge holders. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing whether people are eligible for a blue badge.
7. The guidance says that people who can walk 80 metres and do not demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking are not eligible for a badge. Councils should take into account factors such as pain, speed, balance, gait, and shortness of breath when assessing if someone can walk 80 metres. The guidance says that people who walk slowly will not be eligible if that is the only qualifying factor.
8. The guidance strongly recommends that every applicant who is refused a blue badge should be given a detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal in the decision letter, and it is not enough to simply state the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria.
9. The guidance recommends a council should have a review mechanism, which preferably does not involve someone directly involved in the original decision. This Council has an appeal process for applicants who are unhappy with its decision.

Eligible subject to further assessment.

10. If a person is not automatically eligible for a badge, 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. 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.

What happened

12. Below is a chronology of key events. It is not meant to show everything that happened.
13. Ms X has arthritis in both hips which has resulted in health and mobility issues. Ms X has also been diagnosed with Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which causes her acute anxiety.
14. Ms X applied to the Council for a blue badge in January 2024. She applied under the category of ‘walking ability’ and provided details of the condition affecting her hips and how this affected her.
15. In early February the Council assessed Ms X in its clinic. The assessment was undertaken by Assessor A. Ms X scored 11 points; a score of 18 or more would have made Ms X eligible for a blue badge. The assessor noted that Ms X:

• had hip dysplasia with osteoarthritis in both hips, struggled to get in and out of the car, was in constant pain which worsened with activity;
• took medication to manage the pain;
• had been referred for physiotherapy;
• was observed to walk 70 metres in 1 minute and 21 seconds with mild difficulty;
• walked at a slow pace with moderate difficulty;
• had mild difficulty with outdoor walking and was able to manage kerbs and inclines;
• had mild signs of discomfort when walking;
• showed significant signs of pain when walking; and
• had no shortness of breath.

16. The Council refused Ms X’s application for a blue badge because it said her mobility impairment was not severe enough to qualify.
17. Ms X appealed the decision in mid-February. She said:

• the assessor did not record all her medications;
• she had started physiotherapy;
• her condition was long-term; and
• she was in constant pain when walking, getting in and out of her car, using stairs and sleeping,

18. In early March Ms X provided a letter from the Mental Health Team in support of her appeal. The letter stated Ms X had PTSD which resulted in low mood and acute anxiety that were worsened when leaving her home environment. Ms X’s symptoms included flashbacks, hypervigilance and fear of being harmed by others which were worsened when in public places. The letter explained that Ms X needed to attend appointments as part of her planned treatment which intensified the severity of her symptoms and at times, she was having to park further afield causing her more significant distress. The practitioner said the ability to park in disabled bays would enable Ms X to attend appointments with reduced amounts of anxiety.
19. In mid-March the Council carried out a reassessment by telephone. The assessment was undertaken by Assessor B. The assessor noted Ms X’s difficulties with walking, PTSD and anxiety when travelling. Ms X scored 10 points.
20. The Council wrote to Ms X and explained she had not met the required points threshold and her application for a blue badge had been unsuccessful.
21. In early April Ms X complained to the Council about its decision not to award her a blue badge.
22. The Council responded to the complaint and said Ms X had not mentioned she had PTSD in her initial application and the information and evidence she had provided was not sufficient to confirms she met the eligibility for a blue badge.
23. Ms X remained unsatisfied and contacted the Council by telephone. The officer advised Ms X to submit a new application under ‘combined eligibility’ and submit as much medical evidence as possible.
24. Ms X submitted a new application in mid-May under the ‘combined hidden and walking’ category. Ms X explained how the pain in her hips impacted her walking and how her PTSD caused her acute anxiety when leaving home. Ms X stated she received weekly psychological support for the PTSD and monthly physiotherapy for her hips. Ms X submitted several documents including medical letters and the letter from the Mental Health Team in support of her application.
25. In mid-July the Council assessed Ms X in its clinic. Ms X scored 8 points. The assessor noted that Ms X:

• completed 80 metres walking over changing surfaces;
• walked with a stick;
• had a moderate antalgic gait; and
• showed no signs of breathlessness.

26. The assessor recorded that Ms X was not receiving any specialist input for the high levels of pain she reported, and her mobility may be improved with the use of a rollator. The Council refused Ms X’s application for a blue badge. Ms X remained unsatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

27. 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.
28. The guidance covers walking distances and pace. Councils should consider the distance a person can cover, whether this is more or less than 80 metres, and how long this takes. Councils should take into account factors such as pain, speed, balance, gait, and shortness of breath when assessing if someone can walk 80 metres. A person is eligible for a blue badge if they are unable to walk or have very considerable difficulty walking 80 metres.
29. At the first assessment Ms X walked 70 metres at a slow pace. It was recorded that Ms X had walked 80 metres. This was incorrect. The notes during the assessment made no reference to the distance Ms X walked and failed to evidence how this was considered alongside other criteria, when reaching a decision to decline the application. This has caused Ms X uncertainty as to whether the outcome may have been different if the assessor had correctly recorded and considered the distance Ms X walked during the assessment.
30. At the appeal stage Ms X provided details of her PTSD diagnosis. Following her unsuccessful appeal Ms X made a second application under the category ‘combined eligibility’’. At both stages Ms X provided supporting evidence that explained how she experienced low mood and acute anxiety that worsened when leaving her home environment. The letter described Ms X’s symptoms and fear of being harmed by others which were worsened when in public places.
31. The guidance says:

“It is important that local authorities give both physical and non-visible (‘hidden’) enduring and substantial disabilities which cause walking difficulty due consideration when determining an applicant’s eligibility in relation to the ‘subject to further assessment’ criteria”.

“… the ‘subject to further assessment’ criteria are not mutually exclusive, and that an individual’s eligibility to receive a badge may need to be assessed in relation to more than one criterion (for example, in cases where physical walking difficulties also cause or are accompanied by very considerable psychological distress and/or risk of harm to the applicant/others)”

32. The appeal and third assessment noted Ms X’s PTSD diagnosis, however, both assessments do not evidence the assessor followed a process which allowed Ms X to explain how her disability affected her while walking, explain any anxiety, fear, avoidance strategies or coping strategies or document any treatment she received, as explained in paragraph 11. The Council invited Ms X to apply under the ‘combine hidden' category but the assessment documents do not show the assessor had considered the hidden difficulties Ms X experienced from both the physical and non-physical aspects of her medical condition. This raises questions about whether the relevant supporting information was properly considered. Consequently, there is further uncertainty as to whether the Council reached the correct conclusion when considering Ms X’s appeal and second application.
33. While the Council is free to adopt its own processes to assess an application, in this case the consideration of Ms X’s application and her individual circumstances was not in line with the guidance.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with Access Independent Limited, I have made recommendations to the Council.
35. The Council issued a letter of apology to Ms X dated 2 December. The Council sent this to Ms X before we sent our final decision statement, which is not in accordance with our administrative practices. However, I do not consider it is necessary to send Ms X another letter of apology now.
36. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified in this statement, within one month of my final decision the Council will:
1. provide staff training or a briefing paper to officers responsible for making blue badge decisions. The officers should be reminded of the requirements in the current guidance, specifically around walking distances and hidden disabilities;
2. refer Ms X’s case to an independent assessor who has not previously considered her application. The assessor should review Ms X’s request for a blue badge using the combined criteria for physical and hidden disabilities. When doing so, the assessor should ensure it takes account of all relevant evidence; and
3. if applicable, waive any blue badge administration fee if Ms X is found to be eligible.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have found fault by the Council causing an injustice to Ms X. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman