Summary: Ms B complained that the Council failed to properly consider evidence she provided in support of her application for a Blue Badge. We found no fault in the way the Council considered Ms B’s application. However, it was at fault in that it did not fully explain the reasons for its review decision. The Council has offered a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by this.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that the Council failed to properly consider evidence she provided in support of her application for a Blue Badge. It refused her application on the basis that she was undergoing a treatment plan that may improve her walking ability however this treatment is for a bladder condition and is not for the nerve damage that is causing her pain and affecting her ability to walk.
2. The Council's refusal of her application has caused Ms B distress and anxiety and she avoids going out because she worries about where she will be able to park and how far she will have to walk.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I have considered all the information provided by Ms B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
7. Ms B 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 Badge Scheme

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 by allowing them or a 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. The DfT issued new guidance to councils in August 2019, to include consideration of ‘hidden disabilities’. It says people may be eligible who ‘experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress’.
10. If a person does not qualify on one of the automatic grounds, the Council has to decide whether they qualify for another reason, including whether they have a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
11. 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. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

Ms B’s application

12. Ms B applied for a blue badge in November 2021. She submitted a copy of a Housing Needs Assessment in support of her application.
13. Ms B did not meet the criteria for automatic eligibility, so the Council completed a desktop assessment. It concluded there was insufficient information to decide whether she qualified for a blue badge. So, the assessor completed a telephone assessment. She recorded that Ms B was receiving treatment from consultants and was on a 12 week plan for bladder treatment. She was also on the waiting list for the pain clinic. She noted Ms B could cope with the pain provided she took regular breaks. The assessor concluded Ms B did not meet the criteria for a badge.
14. The Council wrote to Ms B in February 2022 explaining why she was not eligible for a badge. It stated, “there is no evidence that undertaking a journey causes you overwhelming psychological distress when walking from a vehicle to your destination. Your access to toilet facilities will not be improved by a blue badge”.
15. Ms B requested a review of the decision and provided a letter from her doctor explaining that she suffers from chronic anal pain with nerve damage and incontinence and has considerable difficulty walking, including psychological distress caused by walking.
16. The Council invited Ms B to attend a face-to-face assessment with an independent mobility assessor in March 2022. At the appointment Ms B provided further information in support of her application. She was also observed completing certain tasks and asked how she coped in certain circumstances. The assessor noted that Ms B attended the appointment independently and did not use walking aids. She recorded that Ms B walked 109 metres at a normal walking pace but with a slight limp. She stated “no pain expressed whilst walking or could be seen visibly. No rest breaks taken and no walking aids used”. She also stated, “overwhelming anxiety, psychological distress or risk to self/others not observed”.
17. The assessor recorded that Ms B had a management plan in respect of her anal nerve damage and that she was part way through a 12 week plan for bladder treatment. She had also been referred to the pain clinic to reconsider her medication.
18. The assessor concluded Ms B did not meet the criteria for a blue badge because full treatment had not yet been received and she was awaiting support through the pain management clinic which should include a review of her medication and non-pharmacological support. The assessor stated it was hoped this would lead to an improvement.
19. The Council wrote to Ms B explaining the decision not to issue a blue badge had been upheld. The stated reasons were, “you are receiving treatment and awaiting health professional support that may improve your walking ability, so your condition cannot currently be appropriately assessed under the eligible subject to further assessment criteria”. The letter informed Ms B that she may re-apply for a blue badge after a period of six months.
20. The Council accepts the letter should also have included the previous reasons for refusal set out in its email sent in February 2022. It accepts the failure to do so may have given Ms B the impression that the reasons set out in the review decision letter were the only reasons her application was refused. It has apologised for this and has offered to pay Ms B £250 in recognition of the uncertainty and time and trouble she has been put to as a result.
21. I find the Council’s failure to include all the reasons for its decision in the review decision letter was fault. This caused Ms B uncertainty about whether it had properly considered her application and she was put to time and trouble in complaining to the Ombudsman. However, I consider the Council’s offer represents a satisfactory remedy for this injustice.
22. I have not identified any fault in the way the Council reached its decision on Ms B’s application. It considered the information she provided in her application and during the telephone assessment. It also observed her walking at the face-to face assessment. Based on these documents, conversations and observations it decided she did not meet the criteria for a badge. I accept Ms B strongly disagrees with the Council’s decision but, in the absence of fault in the way the decision was reached, I cannot question it.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I find no fault in the way the Council reached its decision that Ms B is not eligible for a blue badge.
24. I find the Council was at fault in that the appeal decision letter failed to include all the reasons for its decision. However, I am satisfied it has offered an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by this.
25. I have completed my investigation on the basis that I am satisfied with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman