Summary: Mr C complains the Council wrongly refused his application for a Blue Badge and the assessment caused him physical pain. I have found procedural fault in the Council’s Blue Badge assessment which creates doubt about the outcome reached. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains about the Council’s Blue Badge process. Mr C says:-
• the Council’s assessment of his Blue Badge is flawed;
• there was delay in the Council’s Blue Badge process;
• the Council failed to properly consider his complaint about a third party contractor, Access Independent.
2. Mr C says because of the Council’s process he suffered physically and the Council wrongly refused his Blue Badge application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr C and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr 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

8. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge Scheme helps people with substantial and enduring physical mobility problems, or other conditions affecting their mobility. 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.
9. The DfT Blue Badge scheme local authority guidance (England), “the Guidance” says councils must make sure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation. 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:
1. 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
2. have an enduring and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
10. Assessing people with severe disability in both arms - Paragraph 4.66 says “This criterion is intended to cover disabled drivers who, because of a severe disability in both of their arms, are unable, or find it very difficult, to use on-street parking equipment.
11. 4.67 When making an assessment under this criterion, local authorities will need to consider whether the applicant meets all of the following:
• regularly drives an adapted or non-adapted vehicle
• has a severe disability in both arms
• is unable to operate, or has considerable difficulty operating, all or some types of parking meter …
12. 4.69 Only a very small number of people are likely to qualify under this criterion. In no circumstances should anyone who does not satisfy all three of the conditions set out above receive a badge …
13. 4.71 Where the applicant does not have an adapted vehicle, only drivers with the most severe disabilities in both of their arms (i.e. who cannot operate a parking meter) should be considered eligible.
14. This may cover disabled people with, for example:
• a limb reduction deficiency of both arms
• bilateral upper limb amputation
• muscular dystrophy
• spinal cord injury
• motor neurone disease
• a condition of comparable severity”
15. 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;
• applicants may be eligible if they can walk 30-80 metres without pain or breathlessness but demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking due to other factors. For example, extremely slow pace and/or manner of walking;
• 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.
16. 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.

What happened

17. On 1 May 2024 the Council refused Mr C’s application for a Blue Badge. It said it had reviewed all aspects of Mr C’s, “application with care and compared this to the criteria.” It considered the “use of walking aids, any breathlessness, the pain experienced when walking, the distance, speed and time” and decided Mr C did not meet the DfT criteria for a Blue Badge. The Council appear to have also emailed Mr C on the same day explaining it did not consider Mr C’s disability in his arms was severe enough to prevent him from operating a parking metre. The Council offered to consider Mr C’s eligibility on the walking disability criteria and attached a further application.
18. Mr C asked for a review of the decision in particular the Council had not properly considered his ability to use a parking meter. Mr C says he has disabling conditions which affect his hands, arms and legs and Fibromyalgia.
19. The Council responded on 7 May clarifying the difficulties Mr C has with his fingers and confirming escalation to a review. It said it would respond in the next 20 working days.
20. On 20 June Mr C emailed the Council for an update. The Council completed a review on the same day and apologised for the delay. It said it could not issue a Blue Badge based on the “arms” criteria but would review its decision if Mr C sent more medical information.
21. Mr C provided extra information the next day. On 27 June the Council told Mr C Access Independent would assess his application because of his reduced mobility. The assessment concluded Mr C did not meet the criteria for a Blue Badge because he:-
• did not have any prescribed walking equipment;
• walked more that 80m which included walking over different surfaces;
• had moderate difficulties with his mobility and there were no severe behaviours of discomfort and/or breathlessness when walking;
• had no history of respiratory or cardiac disease resulting in breathlessness or evidence of musculoskeletal, orthopaedic, or vestibular diagnosis, or recurrent or unexplained falls;
• “was advised that use of a rollator is likely to improve their mobility; they do not want to consider this at present. They would like to continue to use walking stick for long distances”;
• confirmed his ability to walk over 100m;
• “completed the 80m walking assessment at a slow pace and may have paused at times…. ‘able to walk around supermarket but requires trolley’; may use walking stick regularly; behaviours/report of discomfort and effort but no use of prescribed wheelchair or EPV for longer trips; pace and distance likely to be improved with rollator and advice/signposting given.”
22. Mr C made a recording of the assessment. He did not share the recording with the Council at the time or as part of his complaint. As part of our investigation the Council has had an opportunity to reconsider the recording and Mr C’s complaints.
23. Mr C says the Council’s assessment is flawed for the following reasons:
• he was not observed walking on different surfaces;
• there were discrepancies between the assessment and what he said during the assessment;
• the assessment included information about another person – he does not use a rollator and there was no discussion of this;
• failure to consider his Fibromyalgia and that he can go into spasms at any time;
• his level of discomfort when walking;
• the Council failed to consider the medical information he provided and has acted contrary to the Equalities Act for direct discrimination and under the Public Sector Equality Act.
24. Mr C says the assessment physically affected him and he had to go into hospital the following day. He says having another assessment would put him at physical risk and wants the Council to provide an alternative way of assessing him.
25. The Council accepted a typographical error in the discussion about a rollator. It says the professional assessor concluded Mr C could shop independently. The assessor based their decision on several factors including Mr C did not need help reaching for items, or carrying shopping to his car. The Council says it considered Mr C’s varying pain and gave him a higher than observed pain rating.
26. Mr C complained to the Council. Following the stage 1 response sent on 3 September Mr C asked the Council to consider his complaint at Stage 2 of the complaints process. The Council did not uphold Mr C’s complaint but as a gesture of goodwill offered a further independent assessment with the same company.
27. As part of the response to my enquiries the Council said:
• “Mr C did not submit any clinical evidence, and no observations were made during the in person expert assessment, to support the view that Mr C has a severe disability in both arms (nor all fingers) sufficient to cause an inability to use a parking meter.”
• disputes the walking distance assessment by Mr C. It says
1. the audio recording alone cannot confirm the distance walked;
2. the walking route is measured and there is no reason to doubt the assessor’s observation of the distance Mr C walked;
3. the walking speed from the recording is 0.043m/s which is exceptionally slow and there is nothing within Mr C’s medical records or any evidence supplied that he would walk that slowly. This is also inconsistent with the fact Mr C could walk unaided for over 80m and engage in conversation with the assessor without significant difficulty;
4. Mr C’s original reason for a Blue Badge was his ability to use a parking meter not his mobility;
5. even if Mr C were to get a Blue Badge it did not entitle him to free use of all parking. He would therefore have to use parking meters and/or pay machines on some occasions;
6. markers set the walking distance within the assessment center. Mr C walked over 100m. The Council says the surfaces included door thresholds, slopes and an incline. Mr C walked without the need to rest, there was no abnormal gait, his posture, rhythm, balance and co-ordination were all satisfactory;
7. the assessor saw Mr C carry a file from the car to the assessment building and Mr C said he could complete personal care tasks.
28. The Council also offered another walking assessment with an assessor not previously involved. However because of the discrepancies between Mr C and its own assessment does not consider a telephone assessment would enable it to properly assess Mr C’s walking ability.
29. Following a draft decision on this complaint Mr C made another application for a Blue Badge with extra medical information. His application was successful.

Was there fault causing injustice?

General Blue Badge process

30. The Council has accepted a delay in dealing with Mr C’s review request and apologised for this. I consider this is a suitable remedy for this part of the complaint.

The Council’s decision to refuse a Blue Badge because of disability in the arms and using a parking meter

31. The Ombudsman’s role is to review councils’ adherence to procedure in making decisions. Where a council has followed the correct process, considered all relevant information, and given clear and sound reasons for its decision, we generally cannot criticise it. We do not make decisions on councils’ behalf, or provide a route of appeal against their decisions, and we cannot uphold a complaint because a person disagrees with a council’s decision.
32. The Council had to apply paragraph 4.67 of the DfT Guidance set out at paragraph 11 above. In making its decision the Council could decide what weight to give different evidence provided. The assessment record includes consideration of Mr C’s disability and his ability to use a parking meter. An applicant needs to meet both criteria to get a Blue Badge when not driving an adapted car. Although I understand Mr C disagrees with the outcome the Council has reached, I cannot say there was procedural fault in how it reached its decision on this element of the complaint.

The Council’s decision to refuse a Blue Badge on the grounds of Mr C’s mobility

33. Mr C did not apply for a Blue Badge because of his mobility. However on reviewing information provided by Mr C, the Council considered whether he was eligible because of his reduced mobility. Mr C recorded the assessment and there are various anomalies between what Access Independent recorded at the time and what Mr C said. As stated above the Council can consider what weight to attach to different pieces of evidence and reach a decision based on the information collectively.
34. Mr C specifically points out the assessment includes information that he uses a rollator. The Council says this was a typographical error made by Access Independent, however I consider this is significant. With other errors in either how Access Independent recorded what Mr C said, or as anomalies, I consider the result of the assessment is unsafe because of them. Access Independent’s failure to accurately record an assessment on behalf of the Council is fault. This has caused Mr C the injustice of not knowing whether the assessment reached a proper conclusion.
35. The Council has explained how Access Independent measured distances and there appears to be no fault in its calculations. However given the anomalies above and the contradictions between Mr C and the Council I cannot say the assessment is reliable.
36. The Council offered Mr C another assessment and made a considered decision about why it cannot offer an alternative form of mobility assessment to Mr C. As there is no procedural fault in the way it reached the decision I cannot challenge the outcome. Mr C may want to have further discussions with the Council about how any future assessments are conducted so it causes him the least amount of distress.

Complaint handling

37. Mr C complains the Council was unwilling to deal with a complaint about Access Independent. I have found no evidence this was the case. Mr C may not have been happy with the way in which the Council responded to his complaint. However, I do not consider this was because the Council was unwilling to address the actions of Access Independent, rather that it did not agree with Mr C’s representations.

Back to top

Action

38. I have found fault causing injustice. I consider the following actions are suitable to remedy the complaint. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions. Where we find fault with the actions of the service provider, we can make recommendations to the council alone. Here we have found fault with the actions of Access Independent and the Council and make the following recommendations to the Council.
39. Within one month of the final decision the Council will apologise to Mr C about the failure to properly record a Blue Badge assessment, and the uncertainty this caused.
40. Within three months of the final decision the Council should through its contract monitoring remind Access Independent about the importance of recording accurately.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. I find fault causing injustice. I consider the actions above are suitable to remedy the complaint. I have now ended my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman