Kent County Council (24 006 913)

Category : Children's care services > Disabled children

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 01 Oct 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award a Blue Badge. We are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

  1. Miss X complains about the Council’s refusal to award a Blue Badge for her child, B.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background law and guidance

  1. 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.
  2. Since August 2019 the guidance has included assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. There are two types of eligibility criteria:
    • where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;
    • where a person is eligible for a further assessment, they have to fulfil one of two criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:
      1. 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
      2. have a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
  6. 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.
  7. Children under the age of three may be eligible for a badge if they fall within either or both of the following descriptions:
      1. a child who, because of a condition, must always be with bulky medical equipment which cannot be carried around with the child without great difficulty; or
      2. a child who, because of a condition, must always be kept near a motor vehicle so, if necessary, treatment for that condition can be given in the vehicle or the child can be taken quickly in the vehicle to a place where such treatment can be given.

Events in this case

  1. Miss X applied for a Blude Badge for her child B in April 2023. She says B is neurodiverse. She says she struggles to get B to walk alongside roads. She says she has a younger child to manage at the same time. She says this means she often cannot go out unless there is another adult around to help her. She believes B is a danger to themselves when near roads. She says B lacks danger awareness. She cannot park outside her home because there are double yellow lines. It means she has to park further away. She wants a Blue Badge so she can park outside her home easily, and safely transfer her children into her home.
  2. When Miss X applied B was two and half years old. The Council refused the application in August 2023. It considered both the under three eligibility and, because B would be three within six months, the over three eligibility assessment. Miss X asked for an internal review under the Council’s policy. It decided in November 2023 to uphold the decision.
  3. Miss X remained unhappy and sought a further review. The Council carried out a face to face assessment in February 2024. It told Miss X it still refused the application. It says B does not meet the criteria. It says B has behaviour which is also typical in none neurodiverse children of his age. It also says there are coping strategies which it is reasonable to expect Miss X to use.
  4. Miss X disagrees. She provided a letter from a community paediatric consultant explaining B’s Autism diagnosis. It is not clear whether the consultant has seen B in a car or road. The Council’s assessor did.

Analysis

  1. 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. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
  2. The Council took account of the relevant guidance, information from Miss X and her doctor, and its own policies. We are unlikely to find fault in the process it used.
  3. We expect councils to provide a clear explanation of the reasons it refused an application in its decision letter. Here it is unlikely we would decide it did not.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings