Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not deal with her application to renew a blue badge in line with law or government guidance. There was fault causing injustice because the Council did not deal with the application in line with the Equality Act 2010 or with blue badge guidance. This caused avoidable uncertainty and distress about the outcome had the Council considered Ms X’s case properly. The Council will issue an apology, make a small symbolic payment to reflect Ms X’s avoidable distress and reconsider her case.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not properly deal with her application to renew her blue badge. She complained about:
• A failure to make reasonable adjustments (requiring her to attend an in-person assessment when she has mental health conditions which cause her anxiety)
• A failure to take into account more recent medical and other evidence she provided about her ‘hidden disabilities’
• Poor customer service by the Council’s contractor, Access Independent.
2. Ms X said she has not had the benefit of a blue badge as a result and was caused avoidable distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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. Access Independent Ltd (AI) carries out expert assessments for blue badge applications. It acts for the Council and we can investigate it.
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

9. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies organisations which carry out a public function. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services and they must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.
10. Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice set out our expectations of councils. We expect councils to be citizen focussed. This means they need to:
• Ensure people can access services easily
• Respond to needs flexibly
• Adopt an inclusive approach.
11. A blue badge allows people with disabilities to park closer to facilities for free. Guidance on blue badges (Blue Badge Scheme Local Authority Guidance (England) May 2022) includes advice for councils on how to assess people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities. The guidance is non-statutory. This means councils do not have to follow it, but most councils do. I have summarised relevant parts of the Guidance in the next six paragraphs.
12. Some people qualify for a badge without needing an assessment. Ms X does not fall within this category.
13. Other people qualify if they have been “certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring and substantial disability (including a non-visible or hidden disability) which causes them to be unable to walk, experience very considerable difficulty walking (including very considerable psychological distress).” In addition, they “may be at serious risk of harm walking” (Paragraph 4.26)
14. If not obvious if a person is eligible, the council should refer the case to an expert assessor.
15. There is no requirement for the expert assessor to be independent. This recognises that for hidden disabilities especially, it may be that only a professional with a close knowledge of the person’s history may be capable of certifying them (Paragraph 4.31)
16. Regarding applicants with hidden disabilities applicants may have developmental, behavioural or mental health conditions which could make answering questions or completing an in-person mobility assessment overwhelmingly stressful or intimidating. The range of physical tests typically conducted during an in-person mobility assessment may also not be relevant as a means of demonstrating the underlying difficulty that some individual experiences when walking. (Paragraph 4.83)

What happened

17. Ms X applied to renew her blue badge in July 2024. She completed the application form giving a detailed summary of her health conditions which include Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and physical conditions which she says affect her ability to walk. The Council’s records indicate Ms X included letters from her GP and psychiatrist which diagnosed her with ADHD, a rehabilitation clinic and an x-ray report. The GP letter was dated September 2023 and described Ms X’s ADHD as ‘an active problem.’
18. The blue badge team refused Ms X’s application in September noting she had applied under the visible and hidden criteria and it had taken into account both areas but she did not meet the criteria because:
• She had issues with balance and pain but there was no recent medical evidence and no prescribed pain medication
• The hidden disability evidence was out of date.

The Council’s email refusing her application said Ms X could ask for a review or appeal, providing further evidence and if so, the Council may arrange an independent assessment which may be in-person or by a review by a qualified independent assessor.

19. Ms X complained to the Council in September raising the same issues as her complaint to us.
20. The Council’s complaint manager told Ms X she had asked the blue badge team for an independent mobility assessment and had escalated her complaint to the second (final) stage of the Council’s complaint procedure to avoid delay.
21. The blue badge team emailed Ms X in September saying it had considered her case and was referring it to an expert assessor and there would be no need for her to attend (in person).
22. The Council’s final response to the complaint said:
• Her mobility score did not meet the threshold and the application did not contain enough ‘recent significant evidence’
• Her case was referred to an assessment centre which was independent of the Council.
23. AI then emailed Ms X with an appointment in person for a mobility assessment with an occupational therapist or physiotherapist. Ms X replied saying she had ADHD and social anxiety and could not attend an appointment in person as her supporting medical evidence had already described. AI replied saying it had cancelled her appointment and would deal with her case as a ‘hidden disability’ assessment.
24. In November, the blue badge team emailed Ms X about her ‘appeal against the refusal of a blue badge’. The Council apologised for asking her to attend an in person assessment and said IA had carried out an assessment of her hidden disabilities. The Council summarised the hidden disability assessment. It says:
• The applicant has an evidenced diagnosis of ADHD. There is a lack of supporting evidence specifically for her ADHD diagnosis
• It is acknowledged that she experiences substantial social anxiety
• The applicant does not qualify under the hidden disabilities criteria. As she does have physical health conditions impacting on her mobility, it is recommended she is seen for an in-person mobility assessment.
• She has been offered numerous appointments and has declined to attend. Application has been declined therefore.

Findings

25. There was fault by the Council and its contractor, AI because:
• The Council’s contractor wrongly said in its hidden disabilities assessment that there was no evidence Ms X had ADHD. This was incorrect because she provided a letter from her consultant which said she had ADHD.
• AI kept offering Ms X in-person appointments when she said she could not attend due to her mental health conditions. This was not in line with Paragraph 4.83 of the blue badge guidance which says in-person assessments may cause a high level of distress or in line with the duty to consider making reasonable adjustments in the Equality Act 2010. It was also not in line with our expectation that the Council should be citizen focussed.
26. The fault caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

Agreed Action

27. 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 service of AI and make the following recommendations to the Council.
28. The Council will, within one month of my final decision:
• Reconsider Ms X’s application for a blue badge, taking into account its duty to make reasonable adjustments to the general expectation that Ms X attends an in-person mobility assessment. It isn’t for the LGSCO to be prescriptive about the exact adjustments, but we expect the Council to liaise with Ms X about the nature of contact and provision of acceptable evidence while not requiring her to attend an appointment at AI’s offices as this is not reasonable.
• Apologise for the avoidable distress. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make Ms X a symbolic payment of £150 to reflect the avoidable distress.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman