Summary: Mrs X complains the Council wrongly refused a Blue Badge renewal application for her son, Y who has autism. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the application and used its professional judgement to decide Y was not eligible for a blue badge under the hidden disability criteria.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council wrongly refused a Blue Badge renewal application for her son, Y who has a hidden disability. She says this has put him at risk of harm and has caused her distress. Mrs X wants the Council to reconsider the application and award her son a Blue Badge.

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 how the organisation made its decision, 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 the information Mrs X provided and discussed the complaint with her. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
5. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I received no comments.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

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 the guidance.
9. 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.
10. There are two types of eligibility criteria. Firstly, where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a blue badge. Secondly, where a person is eligible subject to further assessment, they must fulfil one of two options of the criteria to qualify for a badge. These are 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.
11. People could also qualify for a blue badge if they are unable to walk, experience considerable difficulty when walking or are at serious risk of harm when walking. This can include people who experience considerable psychological distress when walking. The latter applies to people who may have what is referred to as a hidden disability such as epilepsy, autism or dementia. The guidance says councils should consider any coping mechanisms people have in place. This can include people being accompanied on journeys.
12. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

What happened

13. In December 2022, Mrs X applied for a blue badge for her son, Y. She said Y had autism, had no sense of danger and she found it difficult to manage his behaviours on public transport. A month later, Mrs X provided the Council with information about the state benefits Y received.
14. In March 2023, the Council refused the application. Mrs X requested a review of the Council’s decision. She attached a letter from Y’s GP which confirmed that Y had a diagnosis of autism. The letter said Mrs X had described the way Y would run away from her when she took him outside, she was fearful that he would run into the road and come to harm. Mrs X said Y had no sense of danger and often would run away from her deliberately. Mrs X told the GP it was difficult for her to manage Y’s behaviour when using public transport and on a walk from parking her car to the destination. The letter also stated that Y had become more aggressive which made travelling as a family on public transport very difficult. The GP said a referral to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) was planned.
15. Mrs X attached a letter from Y’s school which stated he had an Education and Health Care Plan in place to support his needs. The letter outlined Y’s behaviours including that, he had no sense of danger and required constant and regular monitoring, was easily distracted and his behaviours or responses were not always predictable, and this increased the risk to him.
16. Mrs X also provided a letter from a speech and language therapist (SALT) which stated Y had a delayed understanding of social situations which impacted his ability to use public transport and required support from his parents to do so. It was also noted that Y found it difficult to cope with crowds and loud noises.
17. In May, the Council completed a review of Mrs X’s application and supporting information. The Council wrote to Mrs X and said Y did not qualify for a blue badge under the hidden disability criteria. The appeal rejection letter acknowledged Y’s issue was a hidden disability, but said the evidence produced was not enough. The criteria quoted by the Council was “an enduring (at least 3 years) and substantial disability” that affected them “all or most of the time, and despite coping/management strategies” and caused “considerable psychological distress” or “significant risk of harm to themselves or any other person” when moving from a vehicle to a destination. The Council said the evidence provided related to difficulties with parking and reasons why taking Y in a car was better than using public transport, rather than the difficulties that happened despite management strategies between the car and the destination.
18. Mrs X then complained to the Ombudsman. She said the Council had failed to consider the supporting evidence she provided and had delayed considering her application.

Analysis

19. Mrs X feels the decision to decline a blue badge is wrong and the Council has failed to understand Y’s behaviours and that he lacks awareness of danger. Mrs X said Y already had a blue badge which had expired in March 2023.
20. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and I can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council has made a decision. I have no power to issue a blue badge or over-turn the Council’s decision. It is not my role to decide if Y is eligible for a blue badge. Instead, we look at whether the Council followed the guidance and considered relevant information when reaching its decision. If we decide there was no fault in how the Council made its decision, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
21. I acknowledge Mrs X’s comments that she was requesting a renewal of Y’s blue badge. Applicants are still required to supply evidence that they meet the eligibility criteria, even if they have had a blue badge previously.
22. I have seen a copy of the form completed by the assessor at the appeal stage. This gives details of all the evidence provided by Mrs X and how it had been considered. I have also considered the Council’s response to my enquiries. The Council said the GP confirmed Y’s diagnosis of autism and the additional information enclosed in the letter described details provided by Mrs X and not because of a direct clinical assessment or treatment. The Council explained the GP letter stated a referral to CAMHS about Y’s behaviour was planned and this suggested that strategies to manage and mitigate challenging behaviour had not been fully explored. The Council said the information provided by the school and SALT was generic without specific details describing Y’s difficulties when travelling.
23. I appreciate Mrs X will be disappointed, but I have found no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision. I am satisfied the Council considered Y’s diagnosis and supporting information provided by Mrs X. The Council was of the view that Y did not meet the threshold criteria, it gave clear reasons why and this is a decision it was entitled to make. As I have identified no fault, I cannot criticise the decision reached in this case.
24. I have considered the Council took three months to respond to Mrs X’s initial application, causing her frustration. This is outside the eight-week expected timescale to process an application, as stated on the Council’s website. Mrs X did not initially provide any supporting documents with her application and did not provide proof of Y’s benefits until the end of January 2023. Therefore, I find the Council issued its decision within eight weeks of receiving this supporting information from Mrs X. The Council’s website clearly states that applications can take much longer if it does not receive all the supporting information it needs to make a decision. I find no fault by the Council here.
25. Mrs X submitted an appeal request in April 2023 and the Council issued its decision four weeks later. I find no fault by the Council here.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have found no fault in how the Council made its decision to refuse Mrs X’s blue badge application. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman