Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to properly consider her application for a Blue Badge, made on behalf of her seriously ill child. We found the Council was at fault because it did not consider the relevant criteria. This caused Mrs X distress and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to properly consider her application for a Blue Badge for her son, who has a serious illness.
2. She says the Council’s actions caused significant 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. 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. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance and policy

The Blue Badge Scheme

7. 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. The scheme gives parking concessions to Blue Badge holders allowing them or their carer to park nearer to their destination. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing applicants’ eligibility for the badge and its renewal.

The Council’s Blue Badge policy

8. Children under the age of three may be eligible for a badge if they fall within either or both of the following descriptions:

• A child who, on account of a condition, must always be accompanied by bulky medical equipment which cannot be carried around with the child without great difficulty.
• A child who, on account of a condition, must always be kept near a motor vehicle so that, 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.

9. This policy reflects guidance from the DfT. It also includes examples of medical conditions that may qualify for a Blue Badge. These include children with feed pumps and conditions including unstable diabetes and severe epilepsy.

What happened

10. Below is a chronology of key events. It is not meant to show everything that happened.
11. Mr X’s son, Y, was diagnosed with a serious illness in June 2024. At the time he was under three years of age. Because of Y’s need to attend hospital regularly, and potentially in a life-threatening emergency, Mrs X applied for a Blue Badge.
12. Her application was unsuccessful because the Council said there was no evidence of a need to carry bulky medical equipment or for treatment to be given in a vehicle.
13. Mrs X appealed this decision. In support of this, she provided a letter (the Letter), co-signed by Y’s social worker and a clinical nurse specialist.
14. She also provided information from the hospital about Y’s treatment.
15. The appeal was unsuccessful because the Council said:

• the Letter could not be considered as clinical evidence;
• Y’s treatment was described as curative, and so Y’s condition was not ‘enduring’;
• Y’s equipment was not considered to be bulky; and
• Y’s risk of infection did not constitute a requirement to be near to a vehicle for urgent transportation to hospital for life saving intervention.

16. Mrs X was told she could reapply for a Blue Badge in nine months’ time, or if Y’s circumstances changed significantly.
17. Since bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, Y has been awarded a Blue Badge. This is because he now receives benefits that qualify him for a Blue Badge without further assessment

Analysis

18. The Ombudsman’s role is not to decide whether Y was eligible for a Blue Badge or give a view about the degree to which he met the relevant criteria. Our role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process in coming to a decision. I have identified two areas of fault in how the Council processed Mrs X’s application and appeal.

Failure to consider all relevant criteria

19. The correct criteria were not applied when the Council made its initial refusal decision. Its decision letter only referred to whether treatment could be given in a vehicle. It did not consider whether there was a need for Y to be transported to a place where treatment could be given. The latter was the main reason why Mrs X felt a Blue Badge was so important.
20. Failure to consider this was fault. However, I am satisfied this did not cause a significant injustice because this error was corrected at the appeal stage.
21. In addition, the Council considered irrelevant criteria at the appeal stage. One of the reasons given for refusal was that Y did not have an enduring disability because his treatment was expected to be curative. This criterion is only relevant to applicants who are at least three years old. The Council should have only considered the criteria set out at paragraph eight (above). This was fault.

Failure to accept recommendations made by a clinical nurse specialist as clinical evidence

22. The Letter that set out Y’s risk of infection and need for urgent transportation to hospital was co-signed by a clinic nurse specialist (the Nurse). I disagree with the Council’s stated position that this was not ‘clinical evidence’. In my view it was.
23. The Council’s assessment of the Letter casts doubt on whether the Council gave the Nurse’s recommendations sufficient weight when making its decision. The Letter clearly stated Y was at risk of life-threatening infection and if he showed signs of fever he needed to be taken to hospital immediately. However, the Council appears to have disregarded this, by stating the risk of infection did not constitute a requirement to be near a vehicle.
24. In my view this was in direct conflict with what was stated in the Letter. While the Council was the decision maker and it was still open to it to make the decision it did, my concern here is that the assessor gave insufficient weight to the content of the letter on the basis it did not constitute clinical evidence, when it clearly did.
25. The failure to properly consider this was fault. I am satisfied this caused Mrs X uncertainly about whether the Council properly considered her appeal and whether Y may have received his Blue Badge sooner.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise to Mrs X in writing for the faults identified in this statement.
2. Pay Mrs X £150 as a symbolic payment for the injustice caused by the faults I have identified.
3. Provide a copy of this decision statement to all officers (including medical assessors) involved in processing Blue Badge application and appeals. This is to ensure they are reminded of the correct criteria to be applied in the case of children under three and evidence is properly assessed.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to action my recommendations to remedy the injustice to Mrs X and improve its service. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman