Summary
Ms X had mobility issues and acute anxiety and applied to the Council for a blue badge. After multiple assessments she did not meet the eligibility requirements and thus complained to the Ombudsman. It was found that her information on one of her assessments was recorded incorrectly and another assessment provided insufficient opportunity for Ms X to explain the impact of her mobility issues on her walking and explain treatment received for her acute anxiety.
What happened
Ms X had mobility issues which resulted from having arthritis in both hips. She also has acute anxiety which stems from her PTSD.
Noting these mobility issues in her application, Ms X applied to the Council for a ‘blue badge’ in January 2024, under the ‘walking ability’ category. She was assessed by the Council in February, who found that she was ineligible for a blue badge as her condition was not severe enough.
Ms X appealed this decision and stated that the assessor had not recorded all of her medications, had started physiotherapy (whereas the assessor had only said that she had been referred), that her condition was long-term, and that she was in constant pain.
Ms X provided a supporting letter from the Mental Health Team in March. The letter highlighted that her PTSD and acute anxiety diagnoses were exacerbated when she left her home and entered public spaces; parking further away for her scheduled appointments worsened her flashbacks, fear of being harmed by others, and hypervigilance and thus, being able to park in disabled bays would reduce distress when Ms X needed to attend appointments.
The Council undertook another assessment over the phone with a different assessor. The outcome was that she was still ineligible for a blue badge, and thus in April, she complained to the Council about its decision.
In the Council’s response, they stated that Ms X had made no reference to her PTSD in her initial application and that the evidence she provided did not meet the requirements for a blue badge.
Ms X remained dissatisfied and phoned the Council. The Council officer stated that she should reapply under the ‘combined eligibility’ category and include all the medical evidence she had available to her.
Ms X submitted an application under the ‘combined hidden and walking’ category in May and noted both her mobility issues arising from her hip pain which she was undergoing physiotherapy for and her PTSD for which she was receiving weekly psychological support. She also included the letter from the Mental Health Team.
In July, the Council assessed Ms X in its clinic and found that she was still ineligible and refused her application for a blue badge. Ms X then complained to the Ombudsman.
What was found
It is not the role of the LGSCO to determine Ms X’s eligibility for a blue badge, but rather to determine if the Council followed the correct procedures when assessing Ms X.
According to guidance, when assessing walking distance and pace, Councils must take into account:
- how far a person is able to walk (whether it is more or less than 80 metres; if a person is not able to walk or has significant difficulty walking 80 metres they are eligible for a blue badge),
- the time taken to walk this distance,
- pain,
- balance,
- gait, and
- shortness of breath.
In Ms X’s first assessment, she walked 70 metres at a slow pace. However, it was noted she walked 80 metres which was incorrect. The notes on the first assessment also did not include the distance she walked or if and how it was considered alongside other criteria. This caused Ms X uncertainty as to whether the outcome would have been different if the information was recorded correctly.
Additionally, the guidance states:
“It is important that local authorities give both physical and non-visible (‘hidden’) enduring and substantial disabilities which cause walking difficulty due consideration when determining an applicant’s eligibility in relation to the ‘subject to further assessment’ criteria”.
“… the ‘subject to further assessment’ criteria are not mutually exclusive, and that an individual’s eligibility to receive a badge may need to be assessed in relation to more than one criterion (for example, in cases where physical walking difficulties also cause or are accompanied by very considerable psychological distress and/or risk of harm to the applicant/others)”
Whilst the appeal and third assessment did recognise Ms X’s submitted information regarding her PTSD diagnosis and acute anxiety, the investigation did not yield evidence that demonstrated Ms X was given the opportunity to explain how her mobility issues impacted her walking, her coping strategies when dealing with her anxiety, or the treatment she had received. Although she was directed to apply under the ‘combined hidden and walking’ category, the assessment documents did not show that proper consideration was given to both physical and mental medical conditions and their interrelationship.
Therefore, the LGSCO found fault with the Council for failing to follow assessment guidelines; this was an injustice to Ms X.
To remedy the injustice, the Council should:
- remind officers that make blue badge decisions of the current guidance;
- refer Ms X’s case to an independent assessor who has not had any previous involvement in the case. The assessor must account for evidence of both physical and hidden disabilities; and
- if Ms X is found to be eligible, waive her application fees.
- [The Council had already apologised before the final decision of the LGSCO was released.]
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
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. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. The Blue Badge (Disabled Persons’ Parking) Scheme was introduced in 1971 under Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (‘the 1970 Act’) and the relevant sections are still in force for these purposes.
The relevant non-statutory government guidance for blue badge decision-making (which is not done under the Care Act at all) describes good practice for blue badge application processes when councils are determining whether the applicant has very considerable psychological distress while walking during a journey. Processes should allow people to:
- explain in their own words how their disability affects them whilst walking;
- respond to closed experiential questions about how their disability affects them whilst walking;
- identity any coping strategies they use, and how effectively these work in practice;
- document any treatment or medication they receive to help them manage their condition;
- identify the names and contact details of any health or social care practitioners involved in their diagnosis and ongoing treatment and provide any relevant supporting evidence; and
- explain how they experience very severe or overwhelming anxiety (for example, through hypervigilance), an overwhelming sense of fear of public/open/busy spaces or why they avoid some/all types of journeys.
Ms X scored only 11 points; a score of 18 or more would have made Ms X eligible for a blue badge so she was a long way away from scoring. Each time she was reassessed she scored fewer points, as it happens. But the fact that the distance she walked was under the 80 metres and incorrectly recorded, and the fact that the appeal and third assessment noted Ms X’s PTSD diagnosis, but did not evidence the assessor following a process which allowed Ms X to explain how her disability affected her while walking, nor explain any anxiety, fear, avoidance strategies or coping strategies or document any treatment she received, were sufficient to underpin a finding of fault.
When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. The work was done by Access Independent Limited, but the Council was liable for its mistakes under this principle.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Devon County Council (24 008 518) report.
If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking a free, one-off question, anonymously, at a level of principle, here. Our experts’ response will give you an opinion which may then help you and the broader community, when posted.
Did you enjoy this analysis? Want to stay informed with our weekly Alert Service?
Then do click here to find out how you can receive the latest insights from experts and commentators and stay updated on key judicial decisions, ombudsmen’s reports, and critical law and policy changes, all for just £50 per YEAR and sent straight to your inbox or WhatsApp!