Summary: We have found no fault with how the Council handled Mrs X’s son’s blue badge application. It followed the correct procedure as required by the Department for Transport’s guidance.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council refused a blue badge for her son, Y.

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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have not investigated why the Council has not issued an amended final Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review in January 2024. This is a separate issue to the blue badge application and Mrs X could submit a separate complaint to the Council.

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 received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

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. 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.
8. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 subject to further assessment, they have to fulfil one or more of three 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 been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring or substantial disability, which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk or experience very considerable difficulty walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress; or
3. be at risk of serious harm when walking, or pose a serious risk of harm to any other person.
12. The guidance states that applicants with ‘hidden disabilities’ may experience developmental, behavioural, or mental health conditions which could make answering questions or completing an in-person mobility assessment overwhelmingly stressful or intimidating. The range of physical tests typically conducted during an in-person mobility assessment may also not be relevant as a means of demonstrating the underlying difficulty that some individual experiences when walking.
13. Where it is apparent this might be the case (for example, from the behaviours and/or disabilities described in an individual’s completed Blue Badge application form), local authorities are encouraged to follow a more appropriate eligibility assessment approach.
14. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

What happened

15. Mrs X’s son, Y has Special Educational Needs (SEN). Mrs X said that he has had a blue badge in the past due to his SEN.
16. In April 2024, Mrs X applied to the Council to renew Y’s blue badge. The Council considered Y’s application under the “subject to further assessment” criteria as the Council said it did not have evidence of Y’s automatic entitlement to a blue badge.
17. The Council explained that Y’s EHC Plan was 5 years out of date and could not be accepted as evidence. It said that Y did not score sufficient points in all domains to qualify for the blue badge under hidden disabilities criteria. The Council declined Y’s application.
18. The Council set out Y’s appeal rights. At Mrs X’s request, the Council sent her the appeal forms which set out what written proof was needed to support the application.
19. Mrs X appealed and submitted some supporting documents. The Council upheld its decision and did not award a blue badge. Mrs X brought her complaint to us.

My findings

20. 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. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
21. The evidence shows the Council followed the correct procedure for a blue badge assessment.
22. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed that the assessors who considered Y’s eligibility for a blue badge are registered occupational therapists (OT). It said the OTs have:
• extensive experience carrying out hidden disability assessments,
• clinical knowledge and backgrounds in both NHS and private sectors,
• undergone training for hidden disability criteria for blue badge assessments with regular refresher training courses and updates on Department for Transport guidance.
23. I am satisfied that the OTs responsible for Y’s assessments were ‘expert assessors’ as required by the DfT guidance.
24. Mrs X was concerned the assessments were desk-based, not face to face. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed that when a blue badge application is made under the ‘hidden disability’ criteria, the assessment is done entirely as a desk-based assessment for the reasons set out in paragraphs 12 and 13 above.
25. I have considered the steps the Council when assessing Y’s eligibility for a blue badge, and the information it took account of when deciding to refuse his blue badge application. There is no fault in how it took the decision, and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Update

26. During the course of my investigation, the Council issued a final amended EHC Plan for Y. Mrs X can re-apply for a blue badge as more than 9 months have passed since the Council rejected her appeal. The Council will then consider the up-to-date EHC Plan as supporting information.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have found no fault with how the Council reached its decision to refuse Mrs X’s blue badge application for her son.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman