Summary: The Council failed to properly consider the impact of Mrs X’s medical conditions when assessing her application for a blue badge

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council refused her renewal 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 Mrs X together with the Council’s response to the complaint and information provided by the Council in response to our initial enquiries. Both Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

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. Mrs X is hearing impaired and has specialist hearing aids which cause noise reverberation in her brain, which she says can be severely disorientating. Consequently, Mrs X is unable to differentiate and decipher the direction of sound in an outside environment, including traffic.
16. Mrs X has had a blue badge for ten years. She says this has allowed her to park without being in danger. The blue badge was due to expire in August 2024, so Mrs X submitted a renewal application in May 2024, applying under the ‘hidden disability’ criteria. She included a supporting letter from a specialist audiologist from a hospital hearing clinic.
17. The Council conducted a desk-based assessment. The application awards points to each category, ranging from 1-20. To be eligible an application either, needs to reach 12 points, or five points in any one category. The categories being communication, cognitive ability behaviour, or ability to travel independently. Mrs X was allocated 1 point in respect of communication. On this basis the assessor declined Mrs X’s application.
18. The Council wrote to Mrs X on 11 June 2024 informing her off the outcome of her application. The author of the letter acknowledged Mrs X had sensory impairment which impacted on her life, but said this was auditory and her vision and cognition were unaffected, and Mrs X was able to visually assess her environment and make decisions about her safety.
19. Mrs X contacted the Council in June 2024 to request a review of the decision. The Council acknowledged receipt of the request on 1 July 2024.
20. In August 2024, Mrs X contacted the Council again to ask how she could submit further information in support of her application.
21. The Council allocated a different officer to review the application. The officer upheld the previous decision.
22. The reviewing officer wrote to Mrs X on 13 August 2024 to inform her of the outcome of the review. The officer confirmed Mrs X’s application had been considered under the ‘hidden disability’ criteria, and upheld the original refusal to issue a badge; on the basis Mrs X did not have an enduring and substantial disability. The officer referenced legislation to support the decision.
23. Mrs X believes the desk-based assessment was insufficient. She says she was not offered the opportunity to provide further evidence or offered an in-person assessment. She says the Council failed to explain why she has met the criteria for past ten years, when her condition has not improved. She says the assessor’s made assumptions about her condition and the impact the specialist hearing aids have on her brain.
24. As part of its response to this office the Council further explained the rationale behind its decision, that it “… concluded [Mrs X] did not experience cognitive, visual or mobility impairments and therefore considered the risk to someone who is able bodied, as a comparator. If an able-bodied person where walking through a busy high street with noise cancelling headphones on, how would they assess their surrounding and navigate their way safely – without removing the headphones…”

Analysis

25. It is not my role to decide whether Mrs X is eligible for a blue badge or give a view about the degree to which she meets the relevant criteria. My role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process in coming to a decision.
26. In this case I am not satisfied the Council has followed the correct process.
27. Although the Council correctly assessed Mrs X not to have mobility or cognitive issues, I am not satisfied it gave sufficient weight to the medical evidence that supports her contention that traffic is hazardous.
28. The Council’s review decision letter quoted from the medical evidence but fails to address issues relating to traffic.
29. I am not persuaded the Council’s comparator with someone wearing headphones is valid. A person wearing headphones can choose to take them off in a place where they feel at risk due to traffic. Mrs X does not have this option. Given the ambiguity it would have been appropriate for the Council to get evidence from an expert assessor.

Back to top

Agreed action

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

• undertake a reassessment of Mrs X’s application for a blue badge, and seek the view of expert assessor;
• provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

31. The Council failed to properly consider the impact of Mrs X’s medical conditions when assessing her application for a blue badge
32. The above recommendation is 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