The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with her application and appeal for a Blue Badge for her son who is autistic. Since she made her complaint, the Council has carried out a further face-to-face mobility assessment and come to the same decision as before. Any investigation of previous events is unlikely to achieve any meaningful outcome for Miss X. We have therefore stopped investigating the complaint. If Miss X considers there were flaws in the latest assessment she may make a further complaint to the Council.
The complaint
Miss X complained that the Council has failed to deal properly with her application and appeal for a Blue Badge for her son who is autistic. She says this includes delaying holding a face-to-face appointment, failure to communicate properly, failing to take supporting evidence into account and rudeness from a member of staff. As a result she says she has been refused a Blue Badge which she feels she is entitled to.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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, sections 26(1), 26A(1) and 34(3), as amended) We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended) We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide, for example, that it would not serve a useful purpose or achieve the outcome the complainant is looking for.
How I considered this complaint
I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered the information she provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered information about events that occurred after Miss X made the complaint to the Ombudsman.
Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
The Blue Badge Scheme The 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.
Since August 2019 the government’s ‘Blue Badge Scheme Local Authority Guidance’ (the ‘Guidance’) has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
There are two possible ways to qualify for a Blue Badge: automatic entitlement through receiving certain welfare benefits; or eligible through a further assessment.
To qualify through a further assessment, there are two criteria, one of which relates to driving which does not apply here. The relevant condition in this case is that the person has to be more than two years old and be certified by an ‘expert assessor’ as having a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
The Guidance says the difficulty in walking may include: ‘very considerable psychological distress’; or being at risk of serious harm when walking, or posing a risk of serious harm to others.
What happened Miss X’s son, Y, is ten years old and has a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Miss X applied for a Blue Badge for him in late 2019. On the application form she explained that Y has no awareness of danger and can run out into the road. She provided supporting documents from health professionals.
The Council referred the application to a mobility assessor. The decision was to refuse to award a Blue Badge.
Miss X appealed against the decision in December and the Council wrote to her to say it had made an appointment for a re-assessment in February 2020. The Miss X sent in further supporting evidence and attended the appointment. She did not bring Y to the assessment and so it was cancelled. She explained to the Council that she did not think she needed to bring him as it would cause him anxiety because of his condition.
The Council re-booked an appointment but it was cancelled because of COVID-19 restrictions. Face-to-face assessments were no longer taking place. Instead the Council asked Miss X to complete a questionnaire which she completed in May. The Council says it tried to contact Miss X after receiving it to arrange a telephone mobility assessment but was unable to do so. Miss X had changed her telephone number.
The Council carried out a telephone mobility assessment in November 2021 once Miss X had made contact with the Council. The Council did not allow the appeal, saying there was not enough evidence that Y met the conditions. The decision letter said if she still felt Y should be awarded a Blue Badge the next stage would be a face-to-face assessment with an expert assessor. However, because of the COVID-19 pandemic all in-person assessments had been put on hold until at least April 2022.
Miss X made a complaint to the Council at the end of 2021. She complained about the way a member of staff had spoken to her. She also said the Council had failed to consider supporting evidence she provided. She went through the two stages of the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council did not uphold her complaint. Regarding the complaint about rudeness from a member of staff, the Council said it did not have a recording of the conversation and the member of staff had denied being rude. The Council said it had made the decision on her application in line with the eligibility criteria, but if she wished to have a further review it would arrange another face-to-face assessment once it had started holding them again.
Miss X complained to the Ombudsman. She said she had not taken Y to the first face-to-face assessment appointment because the letter was unclear. She said she assumed because she had applied under the ‘hidden disabilities’ criteria the assessor did not need to see her son. She said the officer she had been dealing with was very rude to her. She felt Y was entitled to the Blue Badge and the Council had ignored evidence she had provided. She explained the difficulties she had when taking her son out with her other children because of his impulsive behaviour which placed himself and others at risk.
The Council arranged another appointment for a face-to face assessment in May 2022. Miss X attended with Y. The result was that the application was refused again.
Analysis The Ombudsman cannot question a council’s decision if it has been made properly. Miss X alleges several faults in the way the Council considered her application and appeal for a Blue Badge for her son which I could investigate. However my view is that little would be achieved by investigating the complaint further for the following reasons.
It is not my role to decide whether Y qualifies for a Blue Badge. If I were to investigate and find fault in the Council’s decision-making, the best outcome I could achieve for Miss X would be to recommend another face-to-face assessment. The Council has already carried out another assessment which resulted in the same decision as previously. So even if I found any fault in the decision-making process up to that point I would not be able to say t this affected the result. Therefore there would be no meaningful personal remedy I could recommend.
Also there would be little value in investigating the question of alleged rudeness by an officer. There is a conflict of evidence between Miss X and the officer about what was said and the tone of voice used. There are no records of the call. Without any supporting evidence I would be unlikely to be able to resolve the conflict and reach a conclusion.
If Miss X considers the Council did not carry out the latest face-to-face assessment properly, it would be open to her to make a further complaint to the Council. Then if she was not satisfied she could complain to the Ombudsman again. If we found fault in the latest assessment, and that resulted in another reassessment leading to a positive outcome for Miss X, we could review how the Council dealt with the application up to then. At that point we could assess whether any previous fault meant she had missed out on a Blue Badge for her son.
But at this stage I consider there is not be enough to be gained to warrant investigating further.
Final decision
For the reasons I have explained, I have stopped investigating this complaint without coming to any conclusions about whether the Council was at fault or not.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman