The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms B complained the Council did not properly consider her application for a personalised disabled bay for her son, C. We found fault in the way the Council considered Ms B’s application. We recommended the Council apologise to Ms B, review its decision to refuse C’s application, and pay Ms B £200 in recognition of her time and trouble.
The complaint
Ms B complains the Council was wrong to refuse her son, C, a personalised disabled parking bay. C has a condition which means he has severe learning difficulties, challenging behaviour and anxiety. He is easily distracted and has no safety awareness. He also has epilepsy and is prone to falls.
C has a Blue Badge, but there is considerable pressure on parking locally. His mother, who is a single parent, often has to park far from home. Due to C’s conditions, Ms B has great difficulty transferring C between his Motability car and their home and says she cannot leave him unattended. Being unable to park outside their home is restrictive for both Ms B and C, as Ms B is anxious about leaving home when she may not be able to park on her return.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
We considered Ms B’s written complaint and supporting correspondence and discussed her complaint with her. We made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. We had regard to relevant legislation and guidance. We also sent Ms B and the Council a draft decision and invited their comments. We considered any comments before finalising our decision.
What I found
Blue Badge scheme The Blue Badge scheme was introduced by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. It allows people with disabilities to park closer to their destinations.
Some applicants for a Blue Badge are eligible for a Blue Badge without requiring further assessment. This includes people receiving the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance or the higher rate mobility component of the personal independence payment (HRPIP).
Personalised Disabled Bays Councils may also choose to provide personalised disabled parking bays. There is no national guidance in respect of such bays.
The Council’s revised Personalised Disabled Bay eligibility criteria Following a Public Interest Report by the Ombudsman ( 19 006 122 ), the Council revised its Personalised Disabled Bay Policy in September 2020. I summarise below (with my highlighting) the relevant criteria when Ms B applied.
To qualify for a personalised disabled bay, applicants must meet all the relevant eligibility criteria. These are split into individual and environmental criteria, to allow the Council to assess the individual applicant’s needs and the road environment.
Documentation Applicants must provide (summarised) copies of a 1. UK driving licence; 2. Blue Badge; 3. Council Tax statement; 4. UK vehicle registration certificate (V5C) or mobility vehicle agreement; 5. Tenancy, Leaseholder or Freeholder Agreement; 6. where the applicant is not the driver, supporting evidence that the driver finds it difficult to move any essential medical equipment; and 7. proof of one of: Higher Rate Disability Living Allowance – Mobility Component; Personal Independence Payment (PIP) – score of 12 points for the “moving around” component; or PIP - score of 10 points specifically for “descriptor e” under the “planning and following journeys” component on the grounds that the claimant cannot undertake any journey because it would cause them overwhelming psychological distress – for applicants with a “hidden disability”.
Individual Criteria Passengers will not normally qualify as a driver is expected to park, assist the disabled passenger to their home and then move the vehicle. Although this may cause a short-term obstruction, this is unlikely to be considered a contravention.
Where the Blue Badge holder is not the driver: they need to permanently live at the same address; there must be no spaces within 50 metres of the nearest door of the property where the driver could drop the Blue Badge holder and later relocate the vehicle; and they must provide all the evidence specified in the documentation section.
Hidden Disabilities Where the Blue Badge holder has a hidden disability, they and the driver must live at the same address. They must also provide: supporting evidence from a designated expert assessor showing how a hidden disability limits or restricts their mobility; and all the evidence specified in the documentation section.
Environmental Criteria In all cases, the following criteria must be met: there must be no off-street parking spaces (including any spaces which a landlord may provide); and it must be possible to create a space within 50 metres of the nearest door to the property.
To help make a decision, the Council may undertake a site survey to consider: the road layout etc.; if parking stress is 90% or above within 50 metres of the property during controlled parking zone (CPZ) times; any other local conditions.
Discretionary Criteria Where local conditions might result in an application being rejected, the Council may exercise discretion. This may include factors such as where: the nature of the road and footway makes it more difficult for the Blue Badge holder; the driver cannot safely set down the Blue Badge holder and park further away, due to their age or it not being possible leave them unattended for any period.
Further Assessment Where further assessment is required, this will be undertaken by a qualified occupational health (or similar) specialist. They will be independent of the Council and provide a final report on the applicant, based on the criteria.
The Council’s further revised Personalised Disabled Bay eligibility criteria After January 2022, the Council made the following changes to its eligibility criteria published on its website.
Hidden Disabilities The Council amended this criterion such that: It will only accept supporting evidence dated within the last 12 months from one of the following expert assessors: Clinical Psychologist, Educational Psychologist, Neurologist, Psychiatrist & Gastroenterologist.
Passengers must provide proof of a PIP score of 10 points for “descriptor e” under the “planning and following journeys” component.
Environmental Criteria The Council amended this criterion such that parking stress must be 90% or above within 50 metres of the nearest entrance to the property during CPZ times, rather than this just being a factor to help make a decision.
Parking Capacity The Council added a criterion such that where an individual bay may cause other users significant disruption, it would consider if a general use disabled bay would be more appropriate.
What happened Ms B and her son C live in a housing association property which is a car-free development. The area where they live is densely populated with considerable pressure on parking, with displacement parking from neighbouring areas. The housing association has no parking in the area.
C previously received Higher Rate Disability Living Allowance – Mobility Component and now receives the higher rate component of PIP which means that he qualifies for a free resident’s permit and a Blue Badge, and which he uses to lease a car under the Motability scheme.
In 2014, Ms B applied for a personalised disabled bay for C. The Council consulted on installing several personalised disabled bays but received objections. It then reconsulted on installing a general use disabled bay with a three-hour maximum stay, so as not to cause other parking stresses. In the event, it decided to install neither a personalised nor a general use disabled bay.
In 2021, Ms B made a new application for a personalised bay. She provided a supporting letter from C’s Occupational Therapist which set out his conditions, challenging behaviour and lack of safety awareness.
The Council carried out an Occupancy Survey to assess the usage of bays. This set out its decision-making process: “If both the individual and environmental criteria are met, the application will be approved. If only one set of criteria are met, the application will be reviewed by the Head of Service before a decision is made…” The Council surveyed the location on four different days and at four different times within CPZ hours. It found that 27% of bays were available within 50 metres of Ms B’s home, so it considered that there was no parking stress.
It noted that: Ms B has a free permit to park outside her home; she could park on yellow lines nearby and then move the vehicle; and there is no personalised disabled bay in the street, but a nearby leisure centre may affect street parking, so it is considered that a personalised disabled bay would impact on residents in the street.
The Council rejected the application. It said the environmental criteria had not been met because: “In all cases, the following criteria must be met: Parking Stress is 90% or above, if spaces are available within 50 metres of the property during controlled parking zone times.”
Mrs B and her representative provided their own figures for parking stress both within and outside CPZ hours. The Council explained that it undertakes stress surveys during CPZ hours due to pressures in staffing and financial resources. Outside these times, only a few enforcement officers are available to carry out surveys.
Mrs B appealed to the Divisional Director. The Discretionary form provided to the Divisional Director assessed the evidence against the criteria: Criteria Y/N Reason/Evidence Documentation – 1 to 7 must be provided Yes All documents provided - Number 6 not provided as Hidden Disability
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman