Summary: The Council did not properly consider Mr C’s application for a blue badge relating to his four-year-old son’s autism. Its approach to processing applications for children with hidden disabilities is not in line with guidance, and in this case, it caused injustice to Mr C in the form of distress by not processing his application correctly. The Council has agreed to reconsider Mr C’s application.

The complaint

1. Mr C says the Council;

• did not properly consider his application for a blue badge relating to his four-year-old son’s autism,
• suggested actions to mitigate risks to his son that would cause distress, and are not what his therapists recommend,
• did not appoint an expert assessor to consider his son’s hidden disability,
• put too much emphasis on his son’s age when considering the application, and
• caused him distress by not processing his application correctly

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 a council’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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant,
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided,
• discussed the issues with the complainant, and
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and considered comments made in response.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Government has issued Blue Badge scheme local authority guidance. It details criteria of those who may be eligible for a blue badge. Applicants who are more than two years old and may experience very considerable psychological distress whilst walking, or may be at risk of serious harm to themselves or others when walking, are eligible subject to further assessment.
6. The guidance says if it is not self-evident to the local authority on the basis of the information available whether the applicant falls into the descriptors, then a referral should be made to an expert assessor for certification.
7. Hidden disabilities criteria was introduced in August 2019 to include autism.

Facts of the case

8. Mr C applied for a blue badge relating to his four-year-old son’s autism. This was accompanied by a letter from NHS Islington Additional Needs and Disability Team. The letter said Mr C’s son has a diagnosis of autism in the high need range. It also describes how Mr C’s son has no safety awareness, limited understanding, no awareness of traffic and would run into traffic without full supervision, has sensory seeking behaviours, has unpredictable behaviour and has difficulty focusing his attention.
9. Mr C says it is very difficult to go near the road with his son. He says this means the family are rarely able to go anywhere as walking to and from the car causes his son too much distress. Mr C says he has to take a chance parking in disabled spaces sometimes just to get his son to school.
10. The Council refused Mr C’s application for a blue badge. It says whilst the information provided by Mr C confirmed a diagnosis of autism, a child of Mr C’s son’s age would not be expected to have self-awareness concerning road safety. It suggested coping mechanisms could be used such as a buggy, safety harness or holding hands whilst travelling to and from the car.
11. Mr C complained to the Council about the decision.
12. The Council acknowledged his son’s sensory processing issues but said the difficulties mentioned can be managed to an extent with coping strategies. It again suggested noise cancelling headphones, harnesses that cannot be unclipped and a buggy for Mr C’s son to sit in.
13. Mr C says the mitigating suggestions by the Council in the previous paragraph would cause his son severe distress and put him in danger. He says his son does not like anything touching his head and will not wear a hat. He also said previously when his son was in a buggy, he hit his head against it repeatedly and the buggy broke.
14. In response to my enquiries the Council said it did not consider referring the case to an expert assessor because it felt it could make a clear decision, that being Mr C’s son was not eligible for a blue badge.
15. The Council has no record of discussing the suggestions with Mr C prior to issuing its decision.
16. The Council said it received feedback from various specialists when the hidden disabilities criteria was introduced in August 2019. It says this stated that children under the age of six years can be supported to walk and access a vehicle with the use of specialist pushchairs/buggies, noise cancelling headphones and harnesses. They would not be eligible for the Blue Badge scheme based on this criteria.
17. It also said that cases for young children are accepted where evidence has been provided to prove or suggest that coping strategies or equipment would not mitigate the difficulties when walking short distances.
18. Mr C complained to the Council and expected a direct response. The Council did not respond to Mr C directly instead it corresponded with a charity whom Mr C was in touch with. Mr C did not ask the Council to use the charity as a representative.

Analysis

19. The Council acknowledges Mr C’s son’s autism diagnosis and the difficulties this causes when walking short journeys.
20. It has considered the risks to Mr C’s son and weighted them against his age and the mitigating factors it has suggested such as noise cancelling headphones and a buggy. It says it has no record of having discussed these suggestions with Mr C prior to making a decision.
21. In response to my enquiries the Council said it had received advice that the mitigating factors it suggests are applicable for children under six and this makes them ineligible for a blue badge. It also said it always considers cases relating to children regardless of their age and ability to use equipment, and has issued blue badges to children under 6 in multiple cases.
22. The Council’s position does not adhere to the guidance issued. It has placed too much emphasis on Mr C’s son’s age and general factors it would consider to mitigate a risk to a child with a similar condition, rather than applying these specifically to Mr C’s son’s condition.
23. If the Council is not sure whether an applicant with a hidden disability is eligible, it should refer to an expert assessor.
24. The guidance says anyone over the age of two can be eligible so considering a child older than that ineligible because of their age, as the Council did in this case, is not appropriate.
25. The Council did not respond to Mr C’s complaint as it should have, as detailed in paragraph 18 of this statement.
26. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 22 to 25, the Council is at fault. This fault has caused injustice to Mr C by not processing his blue badge application fairly and in accordance with the local authority guidance. The fault has also caused distress to Mr C because the Council did not act on the information provided as it should have done.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. To remedy the injustice caused by the Council’s fault in this case it should, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:

• Send a written apology to Mr C;
• Reconsider his blue badge application with a fresh assessor;
• Pay Mr C £150 in recognition of the distress caused;
• Pay Mr C £50 for poor complaint handling.

28. Within three months the Council should deliver training to all its officers processing blue badge applications. This training should consider when to refer a case to an expert assessor and to ensure each case is considered on an individual basis. It should ensure any mitigating factors it considers when making decisions are discussed with the applicant and, if necessary, health care professionals to ensure the suggestions are relevant to the case.
29. Evidence of completing the remedies listed in points 27 and 28 should be provided to the Ombudsman by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I uphold a finding of fault with how the Council has processed Mr C’s application for a blue badge relating to his son’s autism. The Council has not followed government guidance and its reasons for refusing the application are flawed. I recommend the Council implement my recommended actions to remedy the injustice caused to Mr C.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman