The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Miss B’s application for a disabled parking permit. It considered her application in line with government guidance and fully explained its decision. It has, however, confirmed that Miss B can now make a fresh application and it will consider any new evidence she provides.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss B, complains that the Council refused to renew her disabled parking permit (which I refer to as a ‘blue badge’). She says she has physical and mental health conditions which means she needs the badge.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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
I considered information from Miss B and the Council.
I considered the government non-statutory ‘Blue badge scheme’ guidance, which the Council uses when responding to applications.
Miss B 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 government blue badge scheme Under the scheme, applicants who receive the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and have 12 points under Descriptor F (‘Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid’) do not automatically qualify for a blue badge. Their applications are subject to further assessment.
To qualify for a badge, an applicant needs to show that they are unable to walk very far without experiencing severe difficulty, and that their inability to walk is such that they are unable to access goods and services unless allowed to park close to shops, public buildings, and other facilities. Several factors may be relevant to determining this, including whether the applicant has very considerable psychological distress while walking.
It is good practice for councils to allow applicants to provide information about how their disability affects them while walking, and to provide supporting information about their disability, including medical evidence.
It is reasonable for local authorities to decide that the frequency with which an applicant experiences very considerable difficulty while walking should be ‘more often than not’ when determining eligibility.
When a council is unsure about whether an applicant should be issued with a badge, it can refer the application to an expert assessor. But it does not have to do this if it is satisfied, from the information available, that the applicant is clearly either eligible or ineligible.
Most applicants would reasonably be expected to provide a health or social care history that clearly demonstrates an enduring and substantial disability that causes them very considerable difficulty when walking between a vehicle and their destination, so it is anticipated that appointing an expert assessor would be an exception.
What happened In April 2022 Miss B applied to renew her blue badge under the ‘without further assessment’ criterion. She said she had 12 PIP points to recognise her difficulties moving around.
The Council refused Miss B’s application, and said her PIP points were awarded under a category (Descriptor F) which did not bestow automatic eligibility for a blue badge. It said that, as a result, she would need to provide suitable medical evidence of her condition (and its impact on her ability to walk short distances).
In May, Miss B arranged for a psychiatrist’s letter to be sent to the Council. The letter set out her conditions, which included depression and seizures. The psychiatrist writing the letter said Miss B was unable to travel on public transport because it caused her overwhelming psychological distress.
The Council responded to Miss B in August. It said she had not provided evidence of the frequency of her seizures, and had failed to demonstrate that: her condition(s) severely impacted her ability to walk short distances; her difficulties could not be alleviated with the help of another person; or her seizures could not be alleviated with medication or coping strategies.
The Council told her she could reapply in six months’ time.
Miss B says she mistakenly applied under the wrong category, and therefore did not provide the right information to support her application. The Council says that, as an exception to recognise her mistake, she can reapply immediately.
My findings
There was no fault in the Council’s decision to reject Miss B’s initial ‘eligible without further assessment’ application – as she is not automatically eligible. However, after she asked for a review and provided a psychiatrist’s letter, the Council then had to consider whether she was eligible subject to further assessment.
Miss B’s psychiatrist’s letter does not mention whether she can or cannot walk without experiencing very considerable difficulty, which is the threshold the Council has to apply. The Council felt that the letter did not justify issuing a badge to Miss B, and explained why.
The reasons the Council gave are all relevant considerations under the guidance, and they do not appear obviously unreasonable. Miss B was also given the opportunity to provide information, including medical evidence, about her difficulties. This means there was no fault in how the Council arrived at its decision.
Because of this, I cannot question the outcome.
Miss B has subsequently said she has other evidence to support her application. The Council has confirmed that it will make an exception to its usual policy, and she will be able to submit this as part of a new application without having to wait the usual six months.
Final decision
The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Miss B’s blue badge application.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman