Summary: Mr X complained he was denied an in-person assessment of his mobility because the assessment centre was too far to travel. The Council has agreed to offer Mr X an assessment at an assessment centre closer to his home. On this basis, the investigation is discontinued.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains he was denied an in-person assessment for a 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 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 have considered the complaint and supporting information submitted by Mr X, and information submitted by the Council. Relevant legislation has also been considered. Both Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

5. 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.
6. 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.
7. To qualify for a blue badge, an applicant must be assessed by their council as either ‘eligible without further assessment’, previously known as automatic eligibility, or ‘eligible subject to further assessment’, previously known as discretionary.
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. An independent review of Blue Badge scheme in 2012 showed that, whilst desk- based assessments have a role as a filtering mechanism to identify applicants who are clearly eligible or clearly ineligible for a badge, they cannot be successfully used as the sole means of determining all applicants’ eligibility for a badge.

Key facts

10. In February 2024, Mr X applied to the Council for a blue badge, citing difficulty walking and pain because of a long-term health condition.
11. The Council completed an assessment of Mr X by telephone. The assessor acknowledged Mr Y's difficulty walking but concluded it not significant enough to justify a blue badge. The assessor scored Mr X 10 points. The threshold being 16 points for eligibility.
12. Mr X submitted an appeal to the Council on 22 February 2024. Following this, the Council completed a further telephone assessment of Mr X on 20 March 2024. The assessor increased the overall score to 15 points, one short of the eligibility threshold.
13. The Council offered Mr X an in-person assessment, but the assessment centre was 70 miles away, so involved a 50-minute drive each way. Whilst government guidance is fairly silent on this issue, it does say applicants would / should be prepared to travel up to 20 mins to be assessed – so pointing councils toward this being reasonable.
14. In Mr X’s case, it appears the distance is the only reason an in-person assessment did not take place. Given his acknowledged mobility difficulties, it would seem appropriate to offer a closer location for assessment.
15. Mr X is only one-point away from being eligible for a blue badge, it does bring into question whether the outcome would be different if he had an in-person assessment.
16. After enquiries from this office, the Council agreed to offer Mr X an in-person assessment at an assessment centre closer to his home.
17. Mr X is satisfied with this. Therefore, the investigation will be discontinued.

Back to top

Final Decision

18. Mr X complained he was denied an in-person assessment of his mobility because the assessment centre was too far to travel. The Council has agreed to offer Mr X an assessment at an assessment centre closer to his home. On this basis, the investigation is discontinued.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman