Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Miss X’s blue badge application. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her blue badge application.

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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault causing the complainant an injustice. This is because the evidence available has not persuaded me the Council has properly considered Miss X’s application.
6. In its review letter, the Council said the evidence provided did not corroborate Miss X having eligible mobility difficulties under the requested hidden disabilities.
7. Blue badge guidance was specifically updated to ensure difficulties experienced by people with non-visible disabilities, whilst walking as part of a journey, are taken into full consideration when determining the eligibility of applicants for a blue badge. However, I cannot see any evidence the Council has engaged and considered the points raised by Miss X that she suffers psychological distress when walking because of her medical conditions. The Council has not explained why it is not satisfied Miss X has very considerable difficulty, including psychological distress, whilst walking.
8. Further, the Council seems to, in making its decision Miss X is not eligible, place large emphasis on not seeing evidence of management strategies to mitigate the difficulties/risk when she transits to and from her vehicle and the effectiveness of any management strategies. It appears to be relying on this as a reason to decline her application. I do not agree this is in line with blue badge guidance.
9. Blue badge guidance (paragraphs 4.64 and 4.65) notes councils need to be satisfied that such difficulties cannot otherwise be managed through reasonable coping strategies. Councils should consider whether existing strategies are being adopted and are effective and whether a blue badge would be an effective coping strategy. However, this does not mean that if someone does not have a coping strategy, this automatically means they are ineligible for a blue badge.
10. It is possible the Council’s point was that because Miss X has not got any coping strategies to manage her sensory processing difficulties while out in public, it is not clear how a blue badge would help overcome these difficulties. I.e., even with a blue badge, she would still need to access public spaces and so be exposed to noise and visual information. However, this has not been explained and so I cannot be satisfied the Council has properly considered the matter.
11. We therefore asked the Council to remedy the injustice caused by this by completing a new assessment of Miss X’s application and to show consideration of the matters outlined above.

Back to top

Agreed action

12. To its credit, the Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman