The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council failed to properly consider medical information when assessing Mr X’s application for a blue badge.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council refused his application for a blue badge.
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
I have considered all the information provided by Mr X together with the Council’s response to the complaint and information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries. Both Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this document.
What I found
Relevant legislation The Blue Badge scheme is to help disabled people with severe mobility problems access goods and services by allowing them to park near their destination. The scheme provides parking concessions for blue badge holders. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing whether people are eligible for a badge.
The blue badge criteria changed on 30 August 2019 and was extended to include people who have a non-visible disability and who meets one or more of the following criteria: cannot undertake a journey without there being a risk of serious harm to their health or safety or that of any other person.
cannot undertake a journey without it causing them very considerable psychological distress.
have very considerable difficulty when walking (both the physical act and experience of walking).
If the Council cannot determine whether the applicant falls into the category as described above, it can make a referral to an expert assessor for ‘certification’.
Key facts Mr X has a neurological condition which causes seizures. He under is the care of his GP and a Neurologist.
Mr X submitted a blue badge application to the Council on 9 November 2022. The Council requested additional information from Mr X on 16 December 2022.
Mr X contacted the Council 8 March 2023 to say he was still awaiting receipt of medical evidence.
Mr X provided the Council with a letter from a Consultant Neurologist on 15 May 2023.
The Council refused the application and wrote to Mr X on 23 May 2023 to inform of its decision.
Mr X submitted an appeal to the Council on 14 August 2023. Mr X says the Council requested further information about his neurology outpatient appointments. Mr X reiterated the information provided by the neurologist and said he could not see the relevance of outpatient appointment information.
The Council refused the appeal and wrote to Mr X on 12 September 2023.
Mr X says Council has not given sufficient weight to the information by the Neurologist.
In response to my enquiries, the Council said its blue badge team, “…acknowledged the fact that [Mr X] has suffered from epilepsy since 2012 and fatigue, tiredness and stress are contributing factors to his seizures. In order to make a decision whether to issue a badge, we require evidence from health professional to confirm that ‘when walking as part of a journey, the applicant experiences very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress”.
Analysis It is not my role to decide whether Mr X is eligible for a blue badge or give a view about the degree to which he meets the relevant criteria. My role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process in coming to a decision.
In this case I find the Council failed to do so because it failed to give sufficient weight to the information provided by a hospital Consultant overseeing Mr X’s care. The information provided was detailed and confirmed Mr X’s medical situation. The Council had sufficient information to evidence Mr X’s eligibility for a blue badge. There was no real value in seeking further information from outpatient appointments. There is fault by the Council here.
In respect of Mr X’s complaint about delay of his initial application. The application did take some months, but I do not consider the initial delay to be wholly attributable to the Council. There was a gap of five months between the Council requesting evidence from the Neurologist and Mr X providing the information. The Council is not at fault here.
The Council received a draft decision statement from this office on 17 January 2024, with a two-week deadline for comments.
Following there was an unexplained delay in the Council response. When the Council did respond, (25 March 2024) it agreed to the recommendations, but said it was unlikely to change its position regarding Mr X’s eligibility for a blue badge. The Council then wrote to Mr X offering him a reassessment, but said, unless he could offer further information, it was probable his application would again be rejected. Following further correspondence from the office, the Council contacted Mr X and this office on 8 April 2024 to say it had reconsidered his application and deemed him eligible for a blue badge. Mr X did not have to attend the reassessment.
The Council’s conduct during this investigation has been unacceptable. Mr X has been caused further stress and uncertainty.
But for the fault of the Council, it is probable Mr X would have been awarded a blue badge in May 2023. Consequently, Mr X has been deprived of the convenience of a blue badge.
The Council has agreed to issue Mr X with a blue badge.
Agreed action
The Council, should within four weeks of the final decision: apologise to Mr X for its failure to give sufficient weight to a letter from a Consultant Neurologist; apologise for the added stress and uncertainty caused by the Council’s delay in responding to this office.
The Council should provide this office with evidence it has complied with all of the above actions.
Final decision
The Council failed to give sufficient weight to medical information from a Consultant Neurologist when assessing Mr X’s application for a blue badge.
The above recommendations are a suitable way to settle the complaint.
It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman