Summary: The Council failed to properly consider information relating to Mr X’s hidden disability when assessing his application for a blue badge

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consider his hidden disability when it rejected 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. I have also taken account of relevant legislation. Both Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document.

Back to top

What I found

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 blue badge criteria changed on 30 August 2019 and was extended to include people who have a non-visible disability and who meets one or more of the following criteria:

• cannot undertake a journey without there being a risk of serious harm to their health or safety or that of any other person.
• cannot undertake a journey without it causing them very considerable psychological distress.
• have very considerable difficulty when walking (both the physical act and experience of walking).

Key facts

7. Mr X has a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). He also experiences anxiety for which he takes prescribed medication.
8. Mr X applied to the Council for a blue badge in September 2022 under the non-visible (hidden) disability criteria. He provided information from his GP which confirmed a diagnosis of ASD.
9. The Council wrote to Mr X asking him to provide further evidence in support of his application.
10. Mr X contacted the Council in January 2023 to complain about the Council’s request for further medical evidence saying he had already provided information about his diagnosis from his GP.
11. The Council completed a mobility assessment of Mr X on 28 March 2023. The assessor reported, Mr X walked 80 metres at moderately slow pace of 1 minute 26 seconds. He walked safely, did not require a walking aid and there was no sign of breathlessness. The assessor scored Mr X 6 points out of a possible 12 points. Qualification for a blue badge is 12 points or more. The assessor concluded Mr X had no mobility issues and did not meet the eligibility criteria for a blue badge. The assessor informed Mr X of the outcome.
12. Mr X sent an email to the Council on 31 March 2023 disputing the decision. He attached a psychiatric report. The report dated 29 March 2023 gives information about Mr X’s diagnosed conditions, prescribed medication and explains how his condition affects him on a day-to-day basis. It says “[Mr X] also relies heavily on having his car nearby in order to have a ‘quick escape route’ when experiencing severe agitation. When he is unable to leave a situation quickly, [Mr X] has previously experienced conflict with members of the public who are not aware of his ASD.
13. Mr X submitted a formal appeal request to the Council on 2 May 2023.
14. The Council rejected Mr X’s appeal and wrote to him on 6 June 2023 informing of its decision. In its letter it said Mr X’s distress is about being in crowds rather than about specifically walking to and from his vehicle. It said the psychiatric report stated there were no identified risks and no concerns about Mr X’s ‘driving status’.
15. On receipt of the letter Mr X telephoned the Council to dispute the decision and say he did not believe the Council had properly considered his hidden disability. The Council told Mr X that the psychiatric report did not say that he suffers considerable psychological distress whilst travelling. Mr X asked the Council to reconsider its decision.
16. The Council rejected Mr X’s appeal and wrote to him on 9 August 2023 informing him of its decision.
17. Mr X believes the Council has focused too much on the physical act of walking and dismissed the hidden difficulties he experiences because of his ASD.

Analysis

18. 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.
19. I am not satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s hidden disability. The psychiatry report specifically states Mr X becomes agitated in crowded areas and requires a swift exit, and if this is not possible, he experiences heightened anxiety. In its decision letter the Council relies largely on the mobility aspect and briefly states it has considered Mr X’s ASD but that as his anxiety pertains to crowds and not specifically walking, therefore he does not qualify for blue badge.
20. I am of the view the Council has misinterpreted or dismissed the part of the report that specifies Mr X’s anxiety relates to being able to make a swift exit, and the impact on Mr X and others when this is not possible.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. The Council should within four weeks of the final decision:

• reassess Mr X’s application for a blue badge and give full consideration to the information provided in the psychiatric report, referred to in paragraph 12 above.

22. The Council should provide this office with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

23. The Council failed to properly consider information relating to Mr X’s hidden disability when assessing his application for a blue badge.
24. The above recommendations are a suitable way to settle the complaint.
25. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman