Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not properly consider her blue badge application for her daughter. We do not find the Council at fault with how it decided to decline her application. There was fault with some delay in responding to her review request. The Council has already apologised for this. This is a sufficient remedy for the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council's decision to decline a blue badge application for her daughter, who has Autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). Mrs X says this is affecting her as she struggles with managing her daughter to ensure travelling is safe for her, as her daughter gets distressed with her sensory difficulties and impulsiveness. Mrs X also complains the Council delayed in responding to her appeal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered her views.
5. I considered the information the Council provided in respect of this complaint.
6. Mrs 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

Law and administrative background

The Blue Badge Scheme

7. 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.
8. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. There are two types of eligibility criteria:
12. 1. where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;
13. 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.
14. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

What happened

15. In August 2022, Mrs X applied for a blue badge for her daughter (“C”). She said C had autism, ADHD, a visual impairment, and learning disabilities. Mrs X also said C had no sense of danger and often runs out into the road, requiring constant supervision. She was also sensitive to loud noises and crowded spaces.
16. Mrs X attached two NHS letters with the application. They outlined C’s conditions.
17. The Council refused the application. It said the information provided did not state the applicant substantially suffered from distress, anxiety, sensory overload, or a lack of self-awareness of danger resulting in a high risk when travelling.
18. Mrs X requested a review of the Council’s decision. She attached a copy of a Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (“CAMHS”) report. This highlighted C’s diagnoses and mentioned C’s sensory issues, hyperactivity, and poor safety awareness. She also attached a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) regarding C’s entitlement to disability living allowance (“DLA”).
19. In December, the Council sent a letter to Mrs X after completing a review of the application. It apologised for the time taken to do it. After considering her application form and documents sent, it decided C did not qualify for a blue badge. In its response, the Council:
• Acknowledged C had been awarded the Lower Rate of the Mobility Component of DLA. However, an applicant had to be awarded the Higher Rate to automatically qualify for a blue badge. Therefore, it was considering the application under the “further assessment” criteria.
• Noted the supporting information she had provided and acknowledged C’s conditions were enduring, however it said the evidence did not show the issues were preventing or causing severe difficulty walking short distances.
• Accepted a child with autism would have greater difficulty understanding dangers or boundaries and noted her comments about C’s safety near roads. However, the information provided did not suggest she was unable to complete short journeys with the assistance of another person. It said in cases where the conditions mentioned impacted the ability to travel, it would be age appropriate to expect a child to be accompanied by an adult to hold their hand to reduce the risk of a child running away or into the road.
• Considered the issues caused a level of difficulty when travelling, however it said the information did not evidence these could not be mitigated or that the frequency of the issues were high enough to qualify for a blue badge. It therefore refused her application.
20. Mrs X then complained to us. She said in her letter of complaint that a blue badge would have a great impact on their lives to lessen the distress in managing C’s behaviour when travelling. She also said the Council had made general judgements rather than looking at C’s individual circumstances, and it had delayed responding to her review request.

Analysis

21. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide if C is eligible for a blue badge. Instead, we look at whether the Council followed the guidance and considered relevant information when reaching its decision. If we decide there was no fault in how the Council made its decision, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
22. In this case, I consider there is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision that C was not eligible for a blue badge. The Council referred to all pieces of supporting information provided by Mrs X. It explained how it considered them against relevant qualifying criteria for a blue badge in relation to hidden disabilities.
23. I appreciate Mrs X disagrees with the decision, but I am satisifed the Council considered relevant information within its review and used its professional judgement to decline the application. It was of the view that C did not meet the threshold criteria, it gave clear reasons why and this is a decision it is entitled to make. As I have not identified fault, I cannot criticise the decision reached in this case.
24. I have considered it took the Council three and a half months to respond to Mrs X’s review request, causing some additional frustration. This is outside of the eight week expected timescale to process an application, as stated on its website. I note the Council has already apologised for this delay. In my view, this is a sufficient remedy for this fault.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have not found fault with how the Council made its decision to refuse Mrs X’s blue badge application, and the Council has already sufficiently remedied the fault with an apology for the frustration caused by delay. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman