Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

London Borough of Harrow

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Not Upheld Reference 22-000-481 Sector Adult Care Services Category Transport Decided 04 August 2022

View Harrow Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: Mrs E complained the Council failed to properly consider her request for a Blue Badge. We do not find the Council was at fault.

The complaint

Mrs E complained the Council has failed to properly consider her request for a Blue Badge. She says it is frustrating and she finds it overwhelming to go out without 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 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 Mrs E and the Council.

Mrs E 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 Department for Transport (DfT) has issued guidance to councils for providing Blue Badges. The Blue Badge scheme entitles drivers or passengers with mobility problems to park nearer to their destination.

The DfT updated its guidance in August 2019 to ensure that difficulties experienced by people with non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities are considered by councils when determining the eligibility for Blue Badges. The revisions to the eligibility criteria mean that councils can now consider a person’s difficulty while walking, and during the course of a journey, rather than solely their ability to walk or difficulties caused only by the physical act of walking.

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 E applied to the Council for a Blue Badge. She said she was suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, mental health issues and many other conditions. The Council invited her to attend a mobility assessment.

The assessor observed Mrs E walk 83 metres very slowly. The assessment notes state Mrs E was not breathless, and she walked steadily with an upright posture and no obvious signs of discomfort.

The Council wrote to Mrs E and declined her Blue Badge application. It explained she did not meet the eligibility criteria and provided detailed reasons why. It also said it had not received any evidence confirming her diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Finally, it said she could provide further information regarding her mental health issues.

Mrs E appealed the Council’s decision and submitted several medical documents. This included letters from her GP and consultant psychiatrist.

The Council conducted a detailed review of Mrs E’s evidence. The assessor noted Mrs E has serious medical conditions and she suffers from anxiety when parking. However, there was insufficient information to suggest she has very considerable difficulty when walking or she is at serious risk to herself and others when walking.

The Council wrote to Mrs E with its detailed findings. Mrs E remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether Mrs E should have a Blue Badge; that is the Council’s job. Our role is to assess whether the Council made its decision properly.

The Council conducted a thorough review of Mrs E’s evidence and assessed her in line with the statutory guidance. It considered both the mobility aspect of Mrs E’s application and the impact of her hidden disabilities. It decided that although she suffers from serious medical conditions, there was insufficient evidence to meet the eligibility criteria.

I appreciate Mrs E strongly disagrees with the outcome. However, I have found no fault in the way the Council made its decision. Therefore, I do not uphold Mrs E’s complaint.

Final decision

I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving London Borough of Harrow

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-021-254 Other
25-024-420 Other
25-012-969 Other
25-024-133 Other
25-021-194 Other
View all decisions for this organisation