Summary: The Council failed to consider the impact of Mr X’s medical conditions when assessing his application for a blue badge. We have made a recommendation to address this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has unfairly refused his application for a blue badge.

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. I have considered the Council’s assessment of Mr X which included an assessment of his mobility. I have also taken account of relevant legislation. 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”.

Key facts

9. Mr X is in his forties. He has a medical condition which impacts significantly on his wellbeing, and his day-to-day life.
10. Mr X submitted an application to the Council for a blue badge on 29 September 2024, under the hidden disability criteria. He attached copies of two letters from hospital consultants dated June and October 2024. The letters confirm recent consultations with Mr X, his condition and the impact on him. Mr X’s medication was also listed.
11. Mr X says he did not hear back from the Council, so he contacted it to chase the progress of his application.
12. Mr X did not meet the eligibility criteria for automatic entitlement to a blue badge, so the Council invited him to attend an in-person assessment.
13. The assessor noted Mr X’s chronic health condition, it affected him on almost every journey; and that travelling on public transport caused him difficulty. As such Mr X had learnt to drive and this had alleviated some of the worry about the consequences of his condition. The assessor scored Mr X the maximum points for enduring and substantial disability and maximum point for the effect of his condition on almost every journey. However, the assessor did not conclude a blue badge would be the most appropriate coping strategy for Mr X, so no point was awarded in this section. Mr X needed 3 points to be eligible for a blue badge. He scored only 2, so his application was declined.
14. The Council wrote to Mr X on 16 October 2024, informing of the outcome of his application. The author of the letter explained the 3-point system Mr X had been assessed against, and said he had scored 2 points, therefore had not met the eligibility criteria.
15. Mr X submitted an appeal to the Council on 24 October 2024.The Council upheld its original decision and rejected the appeal. It wrote to Mr X on 21 November 2024 to inform of its decision, and the reasons for this.
16. Mr X is dissatisfied and believes the Council has not properly considered his condition in line with government guidance on hidden disabilities.

Analysis

17. It is not my role to decide whether M 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. In this case I am not persuaded the Council has done so.
18. The Council acknowledges Mr X has a severe and enduring health condition, and its impact on him. The condition is one which was highlighted in medical research for hidden disabilities. In turn this research formed part of government guidance on blue badge applications under the hidden disability criteria.
19. The Council refused Mr X a blue badge on the basis it was not an effective coping strategy. I am not persuaded by this argument. The Council acknowledges that Mr X’s condition affects him on nearly every journey he undertakes. Whilst the Council may be correct in its view that a blue badge would not prevent Mr X having a toilet accident, it would help him should this happen; as he would have a speedier return to his car. I am also of the view the Council failed to consider the considerable distress Mr X would experience as a consequence of such an event, and of the benefit of being able to park close to his destination should he need to return swiftly to his car
20. I am also not persuaded the Council gave sufficient weight to the letters from medical professionals.
21. Overall, I do not consider the Council considered Mr X’s application in line with government guidance on hidden disabilities.

Back to top

Agreed Action

22. The Council should, within four weeks of the final decision:

• review of Mr X’s application; taking account of two letters from medical professionals, and the comments in paragraphs 17,18 &19 above.

Back to top

Final Decision

23. The Council failed to consider the impact of Mr X’s medical conditions when assessing his application for a blue badge
24. The above recommendation is a suitable way to settle the complaint.
25. It is, on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman