Summary: Mr X, complains on behalf of Mrs Y. He said the Council has failed to properly reach a decision to refuse Mrs Y’s blue badge application. The Ombudsman does not find the Council to be at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains on behalf of Mrs Y. He said the Council has failed to properly reach a decision to refuse Mrs Y’s blue badge application.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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 considered all the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my revised draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

6. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge Scheme helps people with severe physical mobility problems, or other conditions affecting their mobility, to access goods and services. It does this by allowing them, or their carer, to park near their destination. The scheme gives parking concessions to Blue Badge holders. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing applicants’ eligibility for the badge.
7. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
8. The DfT guidance sets out what assessors may wish to consider when assessing a person’s mobility. The guidance is non-statutory. This means councils do not have to follow it, but most councils do. We expect councils to explain if they decide not to follow such guidance.
9. There are two types of eligibility criteria:

• where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;
• where a person is eligible subject to further assessment, they have to fulfil one of two criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:
• drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and be unable to operate, or have considerable difficulty operating, all or some types of parking meter; OR
• have a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.

10. Applicants who can walk more than 80 metres and do not display very considerable difficulty walking for any other reason, including very considerable psychological distress, or serious risk to themselves or others, would not be eligible. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.
11. The guidance states in respect of physical disabilities and/or non-visible (‘hidden’) conditions, only where a local authority cannot satisfy itself that an applicant meets, or does not meet, the eligibility criteria, based on the evidence provided by the applicant would it be expected to appoint an ‘expert assessor’. Most applicants would reasonably be expected to demonstrate a health/social care history that is consistent with having an enduring and substantial disability that causes them very considerable difficulty when walking between a vehicle and their destination, therefore it is anticipated that appointing an expert assessor would be by exception.

Assessing hidden disabilities including applicants with mental health problems

12. 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.

Summary of the key events

13. Mrs Y applied for a blue badge in May 2024. She said:
• she had mental health disorders, pains in her leg and arms, had collapsed several times and could not move part of her body from time to time;
• the blue badge would help her to park nearer to her destination. She said this would minimise the walking distance, risk of falling, dizziness, palpitations and low mood which she said would often lead to anxiety;
• she was currently dependent on her partner for help and support; and
• in support of her application, she had attached her personal independence payment (PIP) letter, a physiotherapy letter from March 2023, a mental health appointment letter from April 2023, medical notes from 2022 stating she had slipped on the stairs and had back pain, a reminder text for a physiotherapy appointment in September 2023, photographs of medication and a disability cost of living payment letter.
14. The Council completed an assessment for applicants with hidden disabilities. It noted:
• it had considered the information Mrs Y had sent in support of her application;
• there was a lack of up-to-date relevant medical evidence to support the application;
• the appointment letters were not considered to be medical evidence as they did not confirm a diagnosis or provide information on symptoms;
• a mobility assessment was not recommended as there was insufficient up-to-date evidence to suggest severely restricted mobility;
• there was no evidence of any speech and language, communication or comprehension difficulties;
• there was no evidence of any cognitive impairment including lack of insight into risk/road safety, learning disability or intellectual disability,
• there was no evidence of any behavioral concerns;
• there was no formal evidence to suggest Mrs Y could not plan and follow a route or undertake a journey independently either from a cognitive or psychological reason; and
• there was no up-to-date mental health information to suggest severe emotional dysregulation or that travelling was a specific anxiety trigger.
15. The Council issued its decision letter to Mrs Y shortly after detailing what it had considered as above. It was also noted the PIP assessment was not reliable for scoring purposes as it was not known what clinical documents the assessor had access too.
16. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision and said:
• Mrs Y had chronic depression since 2014 which the GP stated had been worse since 2020;
• Mrs Y has a number of physical conditions. She is obese, suffers from headaches and various skin conditions. She describes pain in her back, arms and knees and pins and needles in her legs;
• Mrs Y had collapsed on a number of occasions, including on the 1 February 2022 due to severe anxiety and panic attacks;
• Mrs Y is unable to plan the route of a journey due to her anxiety and depression;
• the severity of her mental health condition has been recognised by the expert panel at the recent PIP appeal tribunal. Mrs Y was awarded standard rate of both components from 2021 to 2026; and
• there was no evidence the assessor gave any consideration as to whether an expert assessor should be assigned to review the application.
17. The Council reassessed the application. It considered the previous supporting evidence and recent information provided by Mr X. It said:
• the application was supported by recent and relevant specialist evidence. But there was no detailed information regarding how the domains of a hidden disability affect her ability to take a journey;
• there was no information on how the mobility domains of distance and pace, manner or walking, balance, outdoor mobility, pain and breathlessness affect her ability to take a journey; and
• there was no submitted evidence Mrs Y has very considerable psychological distress when walking or taking a journey.
18. The Council issued its decision letter to Mrs Y shortly after detailing the reasons above. It said despite having some difficulties making a journey, the level of Mrs Y’s impairment did not meet the criteria to qualify for a blue badge.

Analysis- was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

19. It is not my role to decide whether Mrs Y 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.
20. Paragraph 14 sets out what the Council considered as part of its assessment. This included all the supporting information provided by Mrs Y. The PIP letter stated Mrs Y scored 10 out of 12 as she needed assistance with unfamiliar routes. But the Council decided there was no formal evidence to suggest Mrs Y could not plan and follow a route or undertake a journey independently either from a cognitive or psychological reason. It said the PIP assessment was not reliable for scoring purposes as it was not known what clinical documents the assessor had access to. This was a decision the Council was entitled to take. It has evidenced it did consider the letter. But it decided that was not enough evidence to grant Mrs Y with a blue badge. As there is no fault in how it reached the decision, I cannot question it.
21. Paragraph 12 sets out the good practice for blue badge applications. In my view the Council followed a process which allowed Mrs Y to explain how her disability affected her whilst walking. This is in line with the guidance.
22. As stated in paragraph 20, the Council has evidenced it did consider all the information Mrs Y provided. But it decided Mrs Y did not meet the criteria for the reasons set out in paragraphs 14 and 17. This was a decision for the Council to take and there is no fault in how the decision was reached.
23. As part of the appeal Mr X did state there was no evidence the assessor had given any consideration as to whether an expert assessor should be assigned to review the application. The Council is entitled to decide a person does not qualify without an expert assessment, as the guidance provides.
24. The initial assessment and appeal assessments were undertaken by occupational therapists (OTs) in the role of expert assessors. The guidance states independent mobility assessments were typically undertaken by OTs. But it says these kinds of mobility assessments may be less appropriate for someone with hidden conditions.
25. As detailed in paragraph 11, the guidance goes on to say where a council cannot satisfy itself that an applicant meets, or does not meet, the eligibility criteria, based on evidence provided by the applicant would it be expected to appoint an expert assessor. Therefore, it is for councils to decide whether they need to get an expert assessor only when it cannot make a decision. But in this case, it had made a decision, and therefore did not need to appoint a further expert assessor.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman