Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to properly consider an application she made for a blue badge for her son. She said without a blue badge, it limits the opportunities he has to access the community. The Ombudsman does not find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council has failed to properly consider an application she made for a blue badge for her son. She said without a blue badge, it limits the opportunities he has to access the community.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 considered all of the information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Blue Badge Scheme

6. 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.
7. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
8. 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.
9. Councils may issue a badge to persons who are more than three years old and who satisfy one or more of the eligibility criteria set out in legislation.
10. There are two types of eligibility criteria:

1. where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;

2. where a person is eligible subject to further assessment, they have to fulfil one of two 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 a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.

11. The disability experienced by the applicant must endure for at least three years.
12. The guidance strongly recommends that every applicant who is refused a Blue Badge should be given a detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal and it is not enough to simply state the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria.
13. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

What did happen?

14. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
15. In July 2022, Miss X applied for a blue badge for her son, C. She said C had autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Miss X also said C had an eye condition in both eyes, needed constant supervision and said he was sensitive to loud noises and other people around him. She attached a letter from the department for work and pensions (DWP) regarding C’s entitlement to disability allowance.
16. The Council refused the application in October 2022 as it said C did not meet the non-visible threshold criteria. It said:
• There was no medical evidence to support the diagnosis of ASD and ADHD;
• No evidence of therapies, interventions or medications taken;
• C displayed milestone expected behaviors and displayed milestone expected levels of road safety awareness;
• The risk was mitigated by age-appropriate parental support and supervision.
17. The Council said coping strategies in place included close parental support and supervision. In addition, it said strategies to include could be the use of ear defenders, reigns/backpack with a strap, visual aids, journey planning, ‘now and next’ cards and social stories and sensory toys.
18. Miss X requested a review of the Council’s decision in the same month. She said C wears glasses full time for his eye condition, doesn’t understand road danger, doesn’t understand many things compared to another child his age and said he gets anxious at loud noises. She attached C’s nursery report, eye prescription and disability living allowance (DLA) award.
19. An occupational therapist completed a telephone assessment with Miss X in October 2022. It was noted that C’s nursery had suggested an ASD and ADHD assessment when he is older but said C was not on the pathway for this currently. A clinic appointment was booked to assess how C mobilises in the community.
20. Miss X and C attended the clinic appointment in December 2022. It said:
• C did not meet the invisible disability threshold.
• C was receiving treatment which meant that the Council could not determine that C’s condition would impact him to a substantial level for the life of the badge (three years).
• There was not enough evidence to prove that C’s conditions impact him to a level where it would be able to issue a badge. It said the risks outlined within the application and supporting evidence are negated by the presence of a parent or carer.
• The risks outlined within the application and supporting evidence do not evidence that Miss X and C are unable to access the community.
• The risks outlined within the application and supporting evidence are able to be managed by strategies that are appropriate for a child of this age.
• Miss X can apply again in six months if she feels the treatment has not changed C’s mobility needs.
21. Miss X told the Council C was on a waiting list for eye surgery and said no time scales had been given. She said waiting for eye surgery makes C vulnerable. She also said the assessor did not inform her of her role on the day of the assessment.
22. The Council apologised if the assessor did not explain the process correctly. But it said C did not meet the blue badge eligibility criteria at that time.

Analysis

23. 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 Council made.
24. In this case, the Council initially refused the application for the reasons stated in paragraph 16. In making that decision, the Council considered the information it had been provided with, which was a letter from DWP regarding entitlement to disability allowance. There was no fault with how the Council reached its decision.
25. Miss X requested a review of the Council’s decision in October 2022 and sent the Council C’s nursery report, eye prescription and DLA award. In response, an occupational therapist completed a telephone assessment with Miss X and a clinic appointment. In the assessment, the Council considered all the information provided by Miss X and assessed how C mobilised in the community. It also considered coping strategies. But it said C did not meet its criteria for the reasons outlined in paragraph 20. This is the process we would expect the Council to follow and is in line with the guidance. Where a Council has followed the correct process, considered all the relevant information and given clear reasons for its decision, we cannot criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman