Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly assess her son (Y’s) blue badge application and unreasonably rejected her appeal of this. There was no fault in how the Council considered Y’s blue badge application. However, the appeal decision letter is poorly written and unclear. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X for the confusion that caused her.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council has failed to properly assess her son’s blue badge application and unreasonably rejected her appeal of this.
2. As a result, Miss X says this has impacted Y’s ability to travel which has caused them distress and uncertainty.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint and considered information she provided.
8. I considered information from the Council.
9. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on this draft decision. I considered comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

The Blue Badge Scheme

10. 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.
11. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
1. 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.

What happened

16. Miss X’s son (Y) has mobility issues and autism. He has held a blue badge since 2021. This was due to expire in 2024 so Miss X applied to renew it.
17. Miss X says in the application Y cannot walk far due to his mobility issues. She also says Y’s autism makes it unsafe for him to be close to other cars.
18. The Council sent Miss X a letter in January 2024 asking her to provide the contact details of a professional involved in Y’s care to gain further information about Y’s conditions.
19. Miss X submitted the contact details for Y’s orthopaedic consultant. She also submitted an orthopaedic letter from 2023 as part of the process which provided further information around Y’s mobility. The letter says Y participates in P.E at school and can complete a one mile walk but reports some calf pain.
20. Miss X submitted a complaint in February 2024 saying the Council had not actioned the information she provided which delayed the blue badge process.
21. The Council responded and said it had emailed Y’s orthopaedic consultant in January 2024 with a form for them to fill out in respect of Y’s medical conditions. The Council had not received a response so it sent the application to an expert assessor to decide whether to renew the blue badge.
22. In February 2024, the Council sent Miss X a letter rejecting the blue badge application. It said it has considered the application and orthopaedic letter dated 2023. The Council concluded there was no evidence to support Y had considerable difficulty walking or he was a danger to himself. The Council also mentioned Miss X had submitted an orthopaedic letter from 2021 which it could not rely on because it was out of date.
23. In March 2024, Miss X requested an appeal of the decision. Miss X said the Council had not looked at the application properly or requested her to provide medical evidence. Also, Miss X says Y first attended the orthopaedic clinic in 2023 so the orthopaedic letter dated 2021 the Council refers to cannot exist.
24. The Council made the decision to refuse the appeal in April 2024 as there was insufficient information to support the application. The decision letter is poorly written, confusing and does not refer Miss X to us. In the letter the Council initially refers to Miss X’s appeal request as ‘the appeal’ and then changes this to ‘the applicant’. The Council also refers to its own decision as ‘the appeal’ which makes the letter hard to follow.
25. Miss X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of the matter and complained to us.

My findings

Council’s consideration of Y’s blue badge application

26. The Council considered Miss X’s blue badge application for Y and the evidence provided. 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 for a blue badge. The orthopaedics letter dated 2023 says Y can walk a mile. Therefore, the Council considered relevant guidance and decided Y did not meet the criteria for a blue badge on this point. That is not fault.
27. Miss X also says Y is a serious risk to himself and others. The Council said in the initial rejection letter she had not provided evidence to support this. There is no evidence Miss X followed this up and provided any further evidence. The Council considered the evidence Miss X provided and was not at fault.
28. The Council has said in its rejection letter it cannot use the orthopaedics letter dated 2021 as evidence as it is now out of date. This letter does not exist as Y did not attend the orthopaedics clinic until 2023. The Council was at fault for referring to this, however, as the Council has not relied on this letter in its decision it does not change the outcome.

Appeal rejection letter

29. As explained in paragraph 23, the appeal rejection letter is poorly written and unclear. Whilst it can be understood the appeal has been rejected, the reasoning is less clear due to the language used. This was fault which caused Miss X confusion.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following action:
1. Apologise to Miss X to recognise the confusion the letter has caused.
2. Remind Council officers that appeal letters need to be written in a way people can understand and refer complainants to us.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I completed this investigation. I found fault and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman