Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider the problems that arose in his assessment when he appealed its decision to refuse him a blue badge. We find fault with the Council’s response to his appeal and have agreed another assessment considering Mr X’s reasonable adjustments.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider his appeal when he applied for a blue badge.
2. Mr X would like the Council to reconsider his application and to issue a blue badge.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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 Mr X’s complaint and supporting information.
7. I also considered the Council’s response to Mr X and to my enquiries.
8. Mr X 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

Government Blue Badge Scheme

9. The Department for Transport issued revised guidance (May 2022) to councils when providing Blue Badges to disabled people with severe mobility problems. The guidance provides a structured functional mobility assessment. The guidance is non-statutory meaning that councils are not legally obliged to adopt it. In practice, however, most councils do follow it.
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 may be eligible subject to further assessment.
12. To qualify under the second criteria, an applicant must be more than three years old and fall within one or more of the following descriptions:
• drives a vehicle regularly, has a severe disability in both arms and cannot use, or;
• has considerable difficulty in using, all or some types of parking meter; or
• has been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring and substantial disability which causes then, during a journey, to:
1. be unable to walk;
2. experience considerable difficulty while walking, which may include considerable psychological distress; or
3. be at risk of serious harm when walking; or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person.
13. Applicants who can walk more than 80 metres and do not display considerable difficulty walking for any other reason, including considerable psychological distress, or serious risk to themselves or others, would not be eligible. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

What happened

14. Mr X applied for a blue badge in August 2024. He sent proof of his Autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnoses.
15. The Council did not continue his application as it said he did not enclose evidence dated within the last 12 months. You cannot include further evidence later.
16. Mr X emailed the Council and explained the diagnosis letters confirmed lifelong conditions which is why they were not dated in the past 12 months.
17. The Council asked Mr X to resubmit his application which he did in early September under the hidden disability criteria.
18. The Council response said the evidence Mr X provided was not enough detail on the requirements (see paragraph 12) which is why it sent the “not processed” letter. This was not a refusal, the Council needed further evidence. The officer considered Mr X’s emails and requested his application to advance to the next stage of further assessment with an independent expert assessor.
19. Mr X had a telephone assessment with an independent assessor in early October. The assessment decided Mr X was not eligible for a blue badge as he always had a companion with him during car journeys which cancels the need for a blue badge, as he is dropped off at the entrance of where he needs to go. He stays in communication with his companions by telephone and can use noise cancelling headphones to manage too much stimulation. The assessor also considered the impact of Mr X’s pain on his mobility, and said he can mobilise and use public transport independently. He can walk up to 100 metres when affected by pain so a blue badge is not justified.
20. The Council assessed Mr X’s application under the further assessment criteria. It decided Mr X did not meet the blue badge criteria as the evidence did not show he has an “enduring or substantial disability” nor that he has an inability to access services.
21. Mr X did not agree with the Council’s decision and asked for a review in October. He said the Council failed to consider his disabilities and challenges, and would like another assessment. He said about the assessment:
• It started late which was distressing for him;
• During the assessment there were connectivity issues which were off-putting;
• He sought a break because of brain fog. He said he felt overwhelmed but was only given five minutes which he says was not enough time. He said he should have been given a longer breaks as a reasonable adjustment (shown in the reports he provided with the application). After his break he found the questions confusing and irrelevant.
• After the assessment he felt mentally and emotionally exhausted.
22. The Council response said Mr X had not provided any new evidence to reconsider therefore it is satisfied the independent expert assessor was provided with all the evidence presented and the appeal is rejected. Mr X cannot reapply for another nine months unless there is a significant change in disability.
23. Mr X asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint. He said the Council had failed to properly consider his comments on the assessment and his reasonable adjustments.
24. During my enquiries the Council said it could not identify Mr X asking for a break during his assessment, and as he did not provide any further evidence it did not ask for a further assessment.

Analysis

25. Mr X’s first application was not processed as the officer was not satisfied the required evidence was attached. I do not find fault with the Council on this point.
26. The Council say “on the balance of probabilities” there is no evidence Mr X asked for a break, so there is no new evidence for his review.
27. Having reviewed the assessment notes, there is no note to show it started late, there were connectivity issues and Mr X got a break of five minutes. It states the questions asked and responses given with no further information about the assessment.
28. On the balance of probabilities I find Mr X did ask for a break. He said he felt overwhelmed which may have affected how he understood and answered questions by the assessor. His reasonable adjustments are clearly given in the evidence he presented with his application and were not considered. This is fault by the Council causing distress and frustration to Mr X.
29. I therefore recommend the Council do a further assessment with the reasonable adjustments Mr X needs, and then make a finding on his blue badge application.

Back to top

Agreed Action

30. Within one month of the final decision the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr X for the faults identified and the uncertainty caused. 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;
• Offer Mr X another assessment appointment, considering his reasonable adjustments.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I find fault with the Council’s review not considering the information Mr X provided. This caused distress and frustration to Mr X and I have recommended the Council do a further assessment.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman