The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to take all relevant information into account when it decided not to award a Blue Badge.
The complaint
Mrs A (as I shall call her) complains that the Council failed to take into account her breathlessness during two assessments. As a result, the Council refused her a Blue 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 how the organisation made its decision, 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 the information provided by the Council and by Mrs A. Both Mrs A and the Council now have the opportunity to comment on this draft statement before I reach a final decision.
What I found
Relevant law and guidance The Department for Transport’s (DfT) 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.
The DfT guidance sets out what assessors may wish to consider when assessing a person’s mobility. The guidance is non-statutory. This means councils do not have to follow it, but most councils do. We expect councils to explain if they decide not to follow such guidance.
The guidance says councils must make sure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation.
Applicants who can walk more than 80 metres and do not display very considerable difficulty walking for any other reason, including very considerable psychological distress, or serious risk to themselves or others, would not be eligible. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.
What happened Mrs A applied for a Blue Badge in June 2023. Her application form said she suffered breathlessness, and pain when she walked for which she had to take medication.
Mrs A was assessed by telephone for her application. The assessor’s notes stated Mrs A drove but her car was often parked about 200 metres from her property and it would take her some time to reach it. Hospital appointments required her to walk about 10 minutes but she had to stop every two monutes to ease the pain.
On a scoring system where 24 – 36 points were eligible for a Blue Badge, Mrs A had 20 points. She scored 0 points for breathlessness.
Mrs A appealed against the decision. In the appeal letter, her brother wrote on her behalf “One of the key reasons is the lack of points received in the breathlessness category. Being asthmatic, she scored 0”.
A different assessor carried out a video assessment of Mrs A over Whatsapp. The video showed Mrs A walking up and down the hallway in her flat. Again, Mrs A scored 20 points; she scored 0 for breathlessness.
The Council wrote to Mrs A on 29 January 2024 refusing her appeal. It said, “Following on from the assessment and based on the evidence provided and your score of 20 out of 36, we have decided you do not meet the Department for Transport’s eligibility criteria for a blue badge because: • You do not have substantial difficulty with breathlessness whilst walking.” It added the assessor’s comments, “She feels more pain today rather than breathlessness.BB mainly help her being picked up at home as double yellows around where she lives. Also, mainly for appointments. From her walking today she scores 20 points and is not appropriate for a BB”.
Mrs A complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had not scored her for breathlessness. We asked the Council to consider a face-to-face assessment but it said, “the Council is of the opinion that as this client has been assessed by two independent assessors, we do not see the value in a further assessment be it face-to-face or otherwise.” It said that during and since the pandemic all assessments had been carried out by telephone and video.
The Council says it assessed Mrs A for breathlessness over the telephone and over the video assessment. The telephone assessor says Mrs A’s brother answered questions on her behalf with her consent. The assessor says, “When asked about medical conditions, no diagnosed respiratory conditions were reported and under treatment being received including medication / inhalers and hospital appointments, no support for any respiratory conditions was reported. When asked to describe mobility (both outdoor, indoor and any variants in her ability to move around) as well explain the distance and discomfort she experiences, no issues of her breathlessness were reported.”
The appeal assessor says, “Her breathing was observed via whatsapp call. Observations were noted if she could communicate, any panting or excessive shoulder shrugs or leaning forward to catch breath. None was noted.” He adds “No breathlessness on exertion noted despite having asthma”.
The Council says that it has reintroduced face-to-face assessments on a limited basis. It says the information provided within Mrs A’s assessments were “in line with the Department for Transport (DfT) requirements to ensure eligibility of a blue badge. With this particular case two assessments were conducted remotely with two different assessors which shows that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria”.
Analysis The Council conducted two separate assessments of Mrs A which led to the same conclusion. It is clear the assessors knew of and referred to her asthma but did not observe the sort of breathlessness which would have increased her eligibility for a Blue Badge.
Although Mrs A did not have a face-to-face assessment, the video assessor was able to observe her breathing. In my view it was not fault for the Council to conduct this assessment by video call.
The Council was entitled to reach the decision that Mrs A was not eligible for a Blue Badge.
Final decision
I have completed this investigation as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman