Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Mr X’s medical conditions when assessing his renewal application for a blue badge. It also failed to undertake a mobility assessment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his application for a renewal of his 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 received a draft copy of this statement for consideration and comment. No comments were received from either party.

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. In 2014 the Department for Transport (DfT) issued guidance (‘the guidance’) to councils for providing blue badges to disabled people with severe mobility problems. The guidance is non-statutory which means that councils are not legally obliged to adopt it. In practice, however, most councils do follow it.
7. The guidance says councils must only issue badges to people who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation. A person is eligible without further assessment if they receive:

• the higher rate of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance; or
• eight points or more under the ‘moving around’ activity of the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment.

8. A person is eligible subject to further assessment if they:

• drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and cannot operate, or have considerable difficulty in operating all or some types of parking metres; or
• have a permanent and substantial disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.

9. The guidance says that, where an applicant is eligible subject to further assessment, an independent mobility assessor should undertake a face-to-face assessment of their mobility. The person completing the assessment should have a professional qualification giving them expertise in assessing walking ability. Councils typically employ occupational therapists and physiotherapists to undertake the assessments. The assessor must be independent of the applicant and their treatment and care.
10. The guidance says applicants who can walk more than 80 metres and do not demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking through any other factors would not be deemed eligible for a badge.
11. Having a certain medical condition does not in itself qualify an applicant for a badge. Rather, it is the effect of the condition or disability on the applicant’s ability to walk that is assessed.
12. The guidance sets out several factors that are relevant in deciding whether an applicant meets the criteria for a blue badge. These include: speed of walking; distance walked; excessive pain; and breathlessness.
13. 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.
14. New rules came into force on 30 August 2019. These are designed to make it easier for people with problems that are not exclusively linked to the physical act of walking to qualify for a badge.

Key Facts

15. Mr X was granted a blue badge three years ago. He has a number of health conditions which affect his day-to-day life and impact on his mobility.
16. Mr X’s badge was due to expire in March 2023, so he submitted a renewal application to the Council in January 2023.
17. The Council already had information about Mr X’s medical issues from a previous blue badge application. It undertook a desk-based assessment based on the information in the renewal form. It concluded Mr X did not meet the eligibility criteria and wrote to him on 26 January 2023 to inform him of its decision.
18. Mr X submitted an appeal to the Council in February 2023 and provided additional information from his GP. I have had sight of this letter. Amongst other information, the GP confirmed the difficulties arising from Mr X’s medical conditions, including his inability to walk long distances due to joint pain, and his need to park close to a toilet because of a chronic and unpredictable bowel condition for which he receives specialist care.
19. The officer responsible for considering the renewal application also considered the appeal. The Council says this was because of staffing issues. The officer completed a desk-based review and upheld the original decision to refuse a blue badge.
20. The officer wrote to Mr X on 23 March 2023 to inform him of the decision and explain why. The officer confirmed he had received the supporting information from Mr X’s GP and said, “The supporting letters you have provided confirm that you suffer from the conditions you mention…The GP letter provided refers to your ability to walk and states, ‘He is not able to walk long distances due to joint pains’ and ‘due to his joint pains, he can walk only short distances.’ Whilst I acknowledge that your condition would have an impact on you carrying out a journey, the information provided does not evidence that your condition severely impairs your ability to walk short distances to access or leave a vehicle”. The officer went on to say, on the information supplied, Mr X did not meet the criteria for a blue badge.
21. Mr X was dissatisfied and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

22. 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. In this case I find the Council failed to do so.
23. Mr X does not receive benefits which give him automatic qualification for a blue badge. Those who are not automatically eligible for a badge may qualify after further assessment.
24. The Guidance says when considering whether someone has very considerable difficulty in walking several factors may be relevant: excessive pain; breathlessness; distance walked; speed; use of walking aids; outdoor walking ability; and whether walking presents a danger to the applicant’s life or would be likely to lead to a serious deterioration in their health.
25. The Guidance says mobility assessments are good practice where decisions on eligibility may be unclear. It says,

“… whilst desk-based assessments have a role as a filtering mechanism to identify applicants who are clearly eligible or clearly ineligible for a badge, they cannot be successfully used as the sole means of determining all applicants' eligibility for a badge”.

26. In this case, the Council should have arranged an assessment of Mr X’s mobility. It did not so. This is fault.
27. I am also not persuaded the officer gave enough consideration to the information supplied by Mr X’s GP in a letter dated 16 February 2023.
28. The assessment is flawed.
29. Furthermore, Mr X’s appeal should not have been considered by the officer dealing with the renewal application.
30. The Council’s fault caused Mr X an injustice because he was denied the opportunity of having his renewal application for a blue badge properly considered. He has also been put to time and trouble pursuing the complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. The Council will within four weeks of the final decision:

• apologise to Mr X for the faults highlighted above, and
• appoint an officer not previously involved with the renewal application to reassess Mr X’s application for a blue badge and undertake a mobility assessment.

32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. The Council failed to properly assess Mr X’s mobility and medical conditions when assessing his renewal application for a blue badge.
34. The above recommendations are a suitable way to settle the complaint.
35. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman