Summary: Mrs Y complains on behalf of her husband, Mr Y, that he has not been awarded a blue badge. Mrs Y says the Council failed to fully consider the evidence before making its decision. Mrs Y says this has caused stress and frustration and has isolated and affected Mr Y physically and mentally. We have found no fault in the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains on behalf of her husband, Mr Y, that he has not been awarded a blue badge. Mrs Y says the Council failed to fully consider the evidence before making its decision.
2. Mrs Y says this has caused stress and frustration and has isolated and affected Mr Y physically and mentally.

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. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs Y and the Council were invited to comment on my draft decision. I have considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. 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.
8. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 or more of three 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 been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring or substantial disability, which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk or experience very considerable difficulty walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress; or
• be at risk of serious harm when walking, or pose a serious risk of harm to any other person.

12. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

What happened

13. Mrs Y applied for a blue badge on behalf of Mr Y in early August 2024.
14. The Council emailed Mrs Y in mid-September 2024 to decline the application on the basis there was insufficient evidence to support issuing a badge. The Council said the legislation is specifically in place to help people where their psychological distress and/or risk of harm is unmanageable and therefore cannot be mitigated.
15. Mrs Y asked the Council to review its decision in late September 2024 and said Mr Y receives a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) at the Enhanced rate Mobility component.
16. The expert assessor contacted Mrs Y in mid-October 2024 and completed an assessment. The form completed by the expert assessor noted Mrs Y said Mr Y had walked into a cycle lane and was hit by a bike. The expert assessor also noted Mr Y ‘s wife accompanies him whenever he goes out.
17. The expert assessor noted ‘n/a’ in the ‘Please give details of the applicant’s risk of serious harm when walking, or they pose to others when walking’ box.
18. The expert assessor said Mr Y did not meet the criteria to receive a blue badge on the basis that he could walk, did not have considerable difficulty walking or was caused considerable psychological distress whilst walking or was not at serious harm when walking. The assessor did note Mr Y did have some difficulty travelling and accessing services.
19. The Council issued its decision on Mr Y’s review request in mid-October 2024. It said the assessor felt that the presence of Mr Y’s wife mitigated any risks associated with travelling and therefore he did not meet the criteria for a Blue Badge.

Analysis

20. Mrs Y says she believes that Mr Y should be eligible for a Blue Badge without further assessment because he receives PIP at the Enhanced rate for mobility.
21. The Council has explained the Blue Badge scheme local authority guidance (England) guidance says in Section 4.4 that to be entitled to a badge via PIP the applicant must:

• receive the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and has obtained 8 points or more under the “moving around” activity
• receive the mobility component of PIP and has obtained 10 points specifically for descriptor E under the “planning and following journeys” activity, on the grounds that they are unable to undertake any journey because it would cause them overwhelming psychological distress

22. Mr Y receives 0 points for moving around and 12 points for planning and following journeys but under descriptor F. Descriptor F is not listed as a qualifying criterion.
23. The Council assessed Mr Y’s application under the further assessment route after establishing he did not qualify without further assessment.
24. The expert assessor who completed Mr Y’s assessment did not record anything about serious risk of harm in the relevant section of the form or confirm how they reached this decision. However, later the assessor has recorded Mr Y is accompanied by his wife whenever he goes out in the mobility section of the form.
25. The guidance says where an applicant would only ever be accompanied by another person this would negate the ‘very considerable’ difficulty they would suffer. The guidance says in this instance a Blue Badge would not help.
26. The Council has explained its reasoning for declining the blue badge application in its letter issued in mid-October 2024 following the review request.
27. It is not my role to decide whether Mr X is eligible for a blue badge or give a view about the degree to which he meets the relevant criteria. My role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process in coming to a decision.
28. In this case, I find the Council followed the correct process and as such have found no fault in the actions of the Council.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman