Summary: Mr X complained the Council incorrectly refused to grant his son a blue badge for disabled parking which meant it was unsafe when his son was out walking or on public transport. We found fault because the Council failed to carry out an adequate review of Mr X’s application. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and request that he submits a new application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused his disabled son, Y, a blue badge for disabled parking. He says the Council has not adequately considered Y’s hidden disability when making its decision, or properly considered reports from professionals with a knowledge of Y’s condition. He says Y’s disability means he cannot access public transport safely or walk safely when out in public which is why he needs a blue badge for parking.
2. Mr X says this has caused him distress and frustration.

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. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. Paragraph four (above) applies to this complaint. I have exercised discretion to investigate Mr X’s complaint back to July 2022. This is when he first applied for Y’s blue badge. It is therefore reasonable to include this period in my investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered all the information Mr X provided and discussed this complaint with him. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
9. 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

10. The blue badge scheme (the scheme) was introduced in 1970 and is to help disabled people with mobility problems access goods and services by allowing them to park near their destination. The scheme provides parking concessions for blue badge holders. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing whether people are eligible for a badge.

Blue badge scheme local authority guidance

11. In 2014 the Department for Transport (DfT) issued guidance (the guidance) to councils for providing blue badges to disabled people with severe mobility problems. The guidance is non-statutory which means that councils are not legally obliged to adopt it. In practice, however, most councils do follow it.
12. The guidance has two methods to assess eligibility – one with further assessment and one without.
13. People who may be issued with a badge after further assessment are those who are more than three years old and may be described as one or more of the following (relevant to this complaint):
• a person who has been 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; and
• 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.
14. The DfT expects that, in the context of disabilities that are predominantly non-visible (‘hidden’) in nature, a risk of serious harm to self/others could manifest as one or more of the following behaviours (relevant to this complaint):
• becoming physically aggressive towards others, possibly without intent or awareness of the impact their actions may have;
• refusing to walk altogether, dropping to the floor, or becoming a dead-weight; and
• wandering off or running away, possibly without awareness of surroundings or their associated risks (for example, nearby roads, car park environments).

The Council’s blue badge policy

15. The Council assesses blue badge applications in line with the guidance issued by the DfT.
16. The Council first completes a desk-based assessment. If unable to make a clear and robust decision using the evidence supplied, the Council will pass the case to an expert assessor or occupational therapist (OT). This is in line with the DfT guidance.
17. The Council offers a review process if applicants are unhappy with the initial decision made. Review requests should be made within 28 days of the initial refusal.
18. If the review decides an applicant is still not eligible, the Council will send a detailed letter explaining how the decision was made and how to complain to the Ombudsman if the applicant feels their application was not processed correctly.
19. The Council’s policy is that new applications may be submitted six months after an initial application was made but refused.

What happened

20. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
21. At the end of July 2022, Mr X applied online to the Council for a blue badge for his young son, Y. Y has a hidden disability.
22. Mr X had mistakenly believed Y was automatically eligible for the badge and had therefore left many of the application form sections about ‘further assessment (for) hidden disabilities’ blank. This meant that there was very little information about how Y’s disability presented itself when out in public and any measures the family was using to try and help Y cope with such journeys.
23. At the beginning of August 2022, the Council sent Mr X a refusal letter. The Council confirmed that as Y did not receive the necessary part of the disability living allowance (DLA) to automatically qualify for a badge without further assessment, it was rejecting the application. The Council said for Mr X to contact it within 28 days if he could provide evidence of a recent change to Y’s DLA entitlement.
24. The Council re-sent the refusal letter to Mr X at the end of September 2022, as he called for an update and said he had not received the August letter.
25. In mid-November 2022, Mr X advised the Council he wanted to appeal.
26. At the beginning of June 2023, Mr X contacted the Council to again say he wanted to appeal and sent in three supporting documents over the next few days. He sent a discharge summary which was three months old and two OT reports written in recent weeks, one from a local charity and one from the local health authority.
27. Both OT reports clearly supported an application for a blue badge. Both reports outlined similar difficulties Y faced due to his hidden disability. Examples were given such as:
• a reduced awareness of danger;
• needing constant support and supervision;
• a lack of road safety awareness; and
• Y’s unpredictable, distracted behaviour meant he may run away so parking close to a venue meant he could access the community safely.
28. At the beginning of July 2023, the Council sent Mr X a second refusal letter. The letter explained:
• the Council had decided to review the application despite the new information being sent around 11 months after the initial refusal letter was sent;
• it acknowledged the difficulties Y’s hidden disability caused – such as impulsiveness and unpredictable behaviour;
• its view was that an adult would be present and able to implement coping strategies such as holding Y’s hand;
• that insufficient evidence had been provided to demonstrate that such support was not effective;
• that information mentioned in the reports about using ear defenders did not provide a clear picture on whether this was an effective coping strategy for Y; and
• that with the use of another person, hand gestures and visual cards would be considered an appropriate coping strategy to communicate with Y at the roadside.
29. The letter explained Mr X did not have the right to a further review but that he could bring his complaint to the Ombudsman if he wished. Mr X then complained to us.

Analysis

30. The Ombudsman’s role is not to decide whether Y is eligible for a blue badge or give a view about the degree to which he meets the relevant criteria. Our role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process in coming to a decision.

Application review July 2023

31. When Mr X contacted the Council to ask for a review of the application in June 2023, it was over 10 months since he had originally applied for Y’s blue badge and over 9 months since his 28-day review option had ended. I agree with the Council’s assessment that the review request had been presented to it very late.
32. The Council could have invited Mr X to submit a new application, in line with its own policy, but instead chose to review his existing (partially completed) application along with the new evidence.
33. When the Ombudsman became involved in Mr X’s complaint, the Council:
• firstly offered to refer the application to its hidden disabilities assessor who would provide an independent second opinion, but who would not review the whole application and only provide a decision based on the completed assessment;
• later said the application already detailed the equipment and coping strategies Mr X was using, that the application did not warrant a blue badge but that it would now suggest passing the application to its hidden disabilities assessor to review the application and all supporting information and documents; before later
• advising me that in earlier replies to me the officer had misunderstood the date of the application and review and the Council’s suggestion was now to ask Mr X to submit a fresh application due to the length of time since his first application had been submitted.
34. I am satisfied, that in the circumstances of this complaint, the Council’s stance has been contradictory and confusing, in terms of its review response to Mr X and in its communications with the Ombudsman.
35. In its review response to Mr X, the Council stated it had not seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate support or assistance and mitigation measures were not effective in reducing Y’s difficulties.
36. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had had multiple conversations with Mr X about how journeys were managed and that coping strategies had been discussed. The Council, however, has provided no evidence or notes of these discussions. Even if evidence was available, it would again point to a contradictory stance from the Council in how it had reviewed Mr X’s application.
37. I am satisfied, that on the balance of probabilities, Mr X’s review was not completed in a satisfactory manner and did not fully seek to understand the effect or lack of effect any mitigation measures might have for Y when considering the significant issues highlighted by the two OT reports. This would have caused avoidable frustration and distress to Mr X. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

The Council’s remedy suggestion

38. As per paragraph 33, the Council has suggested it asks Mr X to submit a new application, for him to have the opportunity to fully answer all questions and provide any new information. The Council said it would also obtain all relevant information in regard to current difficulties, the effectiveness of strategies used and for an independent assessment to be completed.
39. Given that Y is now almost two years older than when his original application was submitted, I am satisfied this is a suitable recommendation to remedy the issues Mr X has experienced and have referenced this below.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Mr X for the lack of a comprehensive and clear review of his application;
• invite Mr X to submit a fresh application should he choose; and
• pass the new application and all relevant documents to its expert assessor/hidden disabilities assessor to review and decide whether to issue a blue badge.
41. Any new application submitted by Mr X should be processed without delay.
42. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman