Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council and its contracted third-party company considered his application for a blue disabled parking badge. We have not found fault with how the Council and the company working on its behalf assessed and decided upon his application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his application for a blue badge for disabled parking. He says the Council has used stricter criteria to assess him than government guidance suggests and that he has been barred from re-applying for nine months after his application was refused.
2. Mr X says this has caused him distress and frustration and affected his ability to access the community.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 have considered all the information Mr X provided and discussed this complaint with him. I have also considered documentation the Council provided in response to our enquiries.
6. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Blue Badge Scheme

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.

Law and guidance

8. In 2014 the DfT issued the Blue Badge Scheme local authority guidance (the guidance) to councils for providing blue badges. The guidance is non-statutory which means that councils are not legally obliged to adopt it. In practice, however, most councils do follow it.
9. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
10. The guidance sets out what assessors may wish to consider when assessing a person’s mobility. It 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 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 a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
12. Where the evidence provided to support the application is not enough to determine an applicant’s eligibility, the council should involve an expert assessor. The assessor will review the case and, if required, will meet with the applicant to carry out the assessment.
13. An applicant’s GP cannot be the expert assessor. Insight from the applicant’s GP cannot be the only source of evidence.
14. Applicants who can walk more than 80 metres and do not display very considerable difficulty walking for any other reason, including very 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.

The Council’s policy

15. Much of the relevant sections of the Council’s policy broadly mirror the guidance from the DfT to determine eligibility. The policy defines the Council’s interpretation of the guidance.
16. In addition, the Council uses a third-party company (Company J) to carry out the assessments for blue badges. The assessment scores an applicant against a range of mobility criteria. Dependant on the assessment score, an applicant may be invited for a face-to-face clinic appointment for further assessment.
17. When an application is refused, the applicant must wait nine months from the date of the initial refusal letter to re-apply, unless their circumstances have significantly changed in the meantime.

What happened

18. At the beginning of September 2024, Mr X applied to the Council for a blue badge. He applied saying he had both a hidden disability and walking difficulties. Mr X listed the medication he took and outlined his difficulties in walking and accessing services because of his physical health difficulties. He provided a document from his GP as evidence of some of his medications and treatment received for health needs.
19. Company J completed its desk-based assessment in mid-September. The assessment decided that it needed to meet Mr X for a face-to-face appointment in clinic.
20. The in-person assessment took place towards the end of October. Mr X’s difficulties did not total the required number of points in line with the assessment criteria. At the end of the month, the Council sent Mr X a letter to say his blue badge application was unsuccessful.
21. The letter said that whilst Mr X may have difficulties affecting his ability to make a journey, he did not meet the criteria to be given a blue badge. The letter provided a summary of his in-person assessment and advised him how to appeal. It said any appeal made should also provide additional medical evidence showing a change in circumstances since the original decision had been made. The letter clarified there was no evidence of any hidden disability for Mr X.
22. Mr X appealed the decision and Company J reviewed the original documentation and assessment report in mid-December. The review said that Mr X had not provided any further specialist medical information related to his mobility needs. The review agreed that Mr X did not qualify for a blue badge.
23. The Council sent its appeal decision letter the next day. The letter signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

24. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made. It is for the Council to decide Mr X’s application for a blue badge and his appeal.
25. Mr X complained the Council and Company J were using stricter criteria to decide the assessment which did not match with the guidance.
26. I have reviewed the documentation related to Mr X’s application, assessments and his final appeal. I am satisfied evidence shows the Council and Company J followed the correct procedure as set out in the Council’s policy and that it acted in line with the guidance.
27. Having a set of criteria to aid assessors in deciding the level of need is not acting against the non-statutory guidance. It is something the Council is entitled to do in order to create a consistent approach.
28. I am satisfied, that in the circumstances of this complaint, the Council did not act with any fault when following the processes it did to determine Mr X’s eligibility for a blue badge.
29. Mr X also complained he had been told he could not re-apply for nine months. I am satisfied the Council has followed its policy here. It has explained that if his circumstances significantly change, he can re-apply before this time. I find no fault in the Council’s actions here.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have now completed my investigation. I do not uphold this complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman