Summary: The Council failed to properly assess Mr X’s eligibility for a blue badge.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his application for a blue badge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information provided by Mr X together with the Council’s response to the complaint and information provided by the Council in response to our initial enquiries. Both Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document, and the comments made have been considered.

Back to top

What I found

The Blue Badge scheme

5. The Blue Badge scheme is to help disabled people with severe 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.
6. The guidance says that people who can walk 80 metres and do not demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking are not eligible for a badge. Councils should take into account factors such as pain, speed, balance, gait and shortness of breath when assessing if someone can walk 80 metres. The guidance says that people who walk slowly will not be eligible if that is the only qualifying factor.
7. The guidance recommends a council should have a review mechanism, which preferably does not involve someone directly involved in the original decision. The Council has an appeal process for applicants who are unhappy with its decision.

Key facts

8. Mr X had a stroke in 2023. This resulted in numerous health and mobility issues.
9. Mr X applied to the Council for a blue badge in October 2023. He gave details of his condition and how this affected him. The Council conducted a telephone assessment on 23 October 2023. The assessor recorded that a stroke had affected Mr X’s left side resulting in left leg and hand paralysis. He required aids and adaptions within his home and received support with personal care from social services.
10. The assessor noted that Mr X’s walking and balance had been affected and that he needed to use a walking aid indoors. Mr X only reported on walking indoors, and that he had not attempted to walk outdoors as was awaiting an assessment for an outdoor walking aid.
11. The assessor noted Mr X had been referred to a neurological rehabilitation team and that he was hoping to receive physiotherapy to work on improving his walking technique, his stamina, and his walking.
12. During the telephone assessment, the assessor also spoke to Mr X’s wife, she reported having to do the driving and that she was concerned about taking Mr X to hospital appointments due to the distance he had to walk.
13. The assessor noted a report from the NHS which confirmed Mr X’s medical condition and the resulting disability. The letter confirms Mr X cannot safely walk outdoors.
14. The assessor concluded Mr X did not meet the eligibility criteria for a blue badge because he did not meet the criteria of ‘Very considerable difficulty walking’.
15. Mr X submitted an appeal to the Council. The Council arranged from Mr X to have an assessment of his mobility assessment on 14 November 2023.
16. During the mobility assessment, the assessor observed Mr X walking 20m indoors. She noted Mr X’s “…symptoms would be expected to improve to some degree with physiotherapy”. Mr X says this comment is unfounded, neither he nor the Council has received such advice from any health professional, and to date, there has been little improvement.
17. The assessor could not observe Mr X mobilising outdoors because he was still awaiting an outdoor mobility aid, so “…therefore not appropriate to complete scoring”.
18. The assessor recorded “…it is difficult to say that the applicant’s condition meets the criteria for an ‘enduring disability’ since the incident only occurred 9 weeks ago… it is difficult to say that the applicant meets the criteria for a ‘substantial disability’. This is not to say that the applicant is not experiencing mobility difficulties at the time of assessment. I note that a full recovery is not necessarily guaranteed in the applicant’s case however the applicant reported today that they have started to see improvements particularly to their strength.
19. The assessor concluded Mr X not eligible for a blue badge because he did not have an enduring disability and “…there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant will not continue to improve as anticipated with physiotherapy”.

Analysis

20. It is not my role to decide whether Mr X is eligible for a blue badge or give a view about the degree to which he meets the relevant criteria. My role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process in coming to a decision.
21. In this case I find the Council failed to do so because it failed to assess Mr X’s mobility outdoors, failed to give due weight to his current situation and wrongly based its decision to refuse a badge on assumptions about his future ability. Decisions about eligibility should made on current presentation as neither the Council nor Mr X can be sure of the extent of any improvement.
22. The Council also failed to give due weight to information provided by the NHS about the impact the stroke had on Mr X’s mobility. It is clear from the information provided by the NHS that Mr X had significant mobility difficulties which resulted in him being unsafe outdoors.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. The Council should within four weeks of the final decision, undertake a reassessment of Mr X’s application for a blue badge. It should assess his current situation and conduct an outdoor mobility assessment. It should also re-consider the information provided in the letter from the NHS.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

25. The Council failed to properly assess Mr X’s eligibility for a blue badge.
26. The above recommendations are a suitable way to settle the complaint.

It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman