Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse an application for a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council refused the application for a blue badge for her son, Mr Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

The blue badge guidance

5. Someone may be issued with a blue badge after further assessment if they:
• Experience very considerable difficulty while walking (which may include very considerable psychological distress). For people with hidden disabilities, this may arise during a journey rather than because of the physical act of walking.
• May be at risk of serious harm when walking or may pose a risk of serious harm to other people.
6. If it is not obvious to a council that an applicant falls into one of these categories, it should refer them to an expert assessor, such as an occupational therapist (who would specialise in assessing a wide range of conditions, including physical, learning, or mental health difficulties).
7. When considering whether someone suffers psychological distress during a journey, a council should allow them to:
• Explain how their condition affects them while walking.
• Identity any coping strategies they use.
• Provide the details of any treatment or medication they receive.
• Provide medical and other supporting evidence.
8. When a disability is hidden, a risk of serious harm could arise in various ways, such as by the person disobeying, ignoring or being unaware of clear instructions.
9. Councils need to be satisfied that applicants’ difficulties cannot be managed with reasonable coping strategies. For example, if an applicant would only ever be accompanied by another person – and this would mitigate their very considerable difficulties – a badge would not help them.
10. Councils will need evidence from health or social care professionals involved in the care of an applicant to confirm the difficulties they experience when walking.

What happened

11. Mrs X applied for a renewal of Mr Y’s blue badge. She said:
• Mr Y has autism and severe learning disability.
• He is non-verbal and can get distressed and try to get out of a car or run in front of a moving car.
• He cannot be left alone and needs help from two adults when he is out and about. He is unaware of danger and is unable to keep himself safe outside. He has no understanding of traffic danger and could not cross the road or walk around a car park safely without assistance.
12. Mrs X provided a copy of a letter from a social worker, but this did not provide information on Mr X’s communication, behavioural problems, and mobility difficulties. She also provided a letter awarding Mr Y’s Personal Independence Payments (PIP).
13. The Council’s expert assessor looked at the application. They said there was no medical evidence of Mr Y’s diagnosis, so it was difficult to assess whether he had a condition which caused him difficulty.
14. The Council rejected his application.
15. Mrs X appealed.
16. An expert assessor considered the appeal. They noted there was no medical evidence to confirm any clinical diagnosis or provide information on :
• communications skills
• cognitive difficulty
• behavioural difficulties
• inability to travel independently; or
• mobility

They also stated they needed to see the evidence submitted to support the PIP application, not just the letter stating PIP had been awarded.

17. The assessor scored the appeal higher than his original application had been scored. But the Council still rejected the appeal. It said there was not enough evidence to suggest he fits the eligibility criteria in the guidance.

My findings

18. 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.
19. In this case the Council:
• Referred Mr Y’s application to a suitable expert assessor.
• Confirmed Mrs X needed to provide supporting evidence such as a recent Specialist Education Needs and Disabilities report or care plan.
20. Therefore, I am satisfied that the Council followed the government’s best practice guidance and was responsible for no procedural fault.
21. In the absence of any such fault – and as the Council’s decision was not, in the circumstances, obviously unreasonable – I have no power to question that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr Y’s application for a new blue badge.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman