Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her blue badge renewal application. She said the Council did not properly consider her medical evidence from a psychologist, and was over reliant on a short telephone assessment from its own medical advisor. The Council was at fault for not sending all Miss X’s medical evidence to its expert assessor. The Council offered to reassess Miss X to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her blue badge renewal application. She said the Council did not properly consider her medical evidence from a psychologist, and was over reliant on a short telephone assessment from its own medical advisor.
2. Miss X suffers from agoraphobia and a fear of crowds. Having a blue badge gave her a feeling of safety and security. It enabled her to reduce the time spent in panic and distress. Taking away her blue badge has left Miss X feeling isolated and a prisoner in her home. She now only makes very short trips close to her home.

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. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Miss X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. Miss 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

Blue Badges

8. 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.
9. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. There are two types of eligibility criteria:
1. Where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;
2. Where a person is eligible subject to further assessment, they have to fulfil one of two criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:
• 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
• have a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
13. Applicants who can walk more than 80 metres and do not display very considerable difficulty walking for any other reason, including very considerable psychological distress, or serious risk to themselves or others, would not be eligible.

What happened

14. I have summarised below some key events leading to Miss X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
15. Miss X received regular therapy and treatment for agoraphobia and anxiety. She suffered panic and distress travelling outside her home. The Council awarded her a blue badge.
16. Miss X’s blue badge was due to expire in September 2023. She applied to renew it in July 2023. She included a supporting letter from her psychological therapist.
17. The Council decided Miss X did not automatically qualify for a blue badge, so it instructed an expert assessor to determine her eligibility.
18. An Occupational Therapist assessed Miss X in January 2024. They considered Miss X is not eligible for a blue badge as she travels with someone to support her, and she can manage her anxiety until she gets home to do exercises. Miss X also stops for breaks while walking and lets people walk past her in order to cope better.
19. The Council wrote to Miss X refusing to renew her blue badge. It referred to DfT guidance and said, based on the assessment, a blue badge is not the only or most effective coping strategy to enable Miss X to access goods and services in the community.
20. Miss X appealed. She provided a report from her hospital psychologist explaining Miss X suffers from significant anxiety symptoms when travelling outsider of her home, and only feels able to travel with her husband. Despite her husband’s presence, she still suffers from significant anxiety symptoms when attending appointments, including ragged breathing, heart pounding, and tearfulness.
21. The Council sent its appeal decision in February 2024. It said Miss X did not score enough points under the eligibility requirements, so it refused her application. It acknowledged her medical evidence, but it said an expert assessor should be someone who, in the Council’s view, is not prevented due to their relationship with the applicant.

My investigation

22. The Council told me it appears it did not send Miss X’s medical evidence to its independent assessor, for which it apologised.
23. The Council recommended sending Miss X’s case to a new assessor with her up-to-date medical evidence.

Analysis

24. The Council accepts it did not send Miss X’s medical evidence to its own expert assessor. That was fault. It meant the assessor did not have all relevant information when they formed their opinion.
25. The Council offered to get up-to-date medical evidence from Miss X and send it to a new expert assessor. In the circumstances, a new assessment is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
26. Once Miss X provides the Council with her most recent medical evidence, the Council should consider whether she meets the criteria for a blue badge, or whether it needs to instruct an expert assessor.
27. In doing so, the Council should be mindful of paragraphs 4.34 to 4.36 of the DfT guidance, which removed the need for independence in the expert assessor role. The guidance recognises that for non-visible conditions, professionals with close knowledge of the applicant’s history could certify their eligibility, and are more likely to be familiar with the applicant’s lived experience of the condition.
28. If the Council considers it needs to use its own expert assessor, it should instruct one who is suitably qualified and holds relevant knowledge in non-visible conditions.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Miss X for failing to send her medical evidence to its expert assessor, and for the frustration caused.
• Contact Miss X to get up-to-date medical evidence and complete a new assessment, if necessary with an expert assessor suitably qualified to consider non-visible conditions.
• Remind staff in its parking and mobility services about the importance of sending all relevant evidence to the Council’s expert assessors.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I completed my investigation. The Council was at fault for not sending all Miss X’s medical evidence to its expert assessor. It offered to reassess her to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman