Consultation Responses:
DfT consultation on Blue Badge eligibility and Local Authority funding for eligibility assessments

DPTAC response - pdf (Adobe Acrobat - 126kb)
DPTAC response - rtf (Rich Text File - 296kb)

To: Katherine Lancaster
Blue Badge and Equality Administration and Good Practice Branch
Department for Transport
Zone 3/23, Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London, SW1P 4DR

The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the above consultation. As you will be aware, DPTAC is the statutory adviser to Ministers on transport matters as they relate to the interests of disabled people.

1. DPTAC was established under the Transport Act 1985 to advise the Government on the transport needs of disabled people. DPTAC has identified four overarching principles on which to base its advice to Government, other organisations and disabled people, which are that:

accessibility for disabled people is a condition of any investment;
accessibility for disabled people must be a mainstream activity;
users should be involved in determining accessibility;
achieving accessibility for disabled people is the responsibility of the provider.

2. These principles are the basis of DPTAC's response to consultations.

Yours sincerely

Dai Powell
Chair, Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

Our Response

Your Comments

We would like your views on our proposals to extend the eligibility criteria to certain children between the ages of two and three and to service personnel and war veterans. We would also appreciate your views on the proposed mechanisms and distribution of the local authority funding for improved medical assessments.

Chapter 4 of this consultation document on "Implementing the Blue Badge Reform Programme" covers the eligibility criteria and Chapter 5 covers the funding which will be made available to local authorities to help them to conduct improved independent medical assessments to inform decisions on applicants' eligibility. The background information in these two Chapters should help you answer the following questions:

Q1: What would be the advantages and disadvantages of a new power to cancel Badges that are reported as lost or stolen, or have expired, or are withdrawn for misuse?

Once a badge is cancelled there must be a quick and easy way for a CEO to determine this or canceling badges would be pointless. As expired badges are no longer valid these should be cancelled automatically.

If there were processes in place to detect a cancelled badge then this would have the clear advantage that people would be less likely to attempt to use these badges illegally. To aid this the expiry date should be more prominent.

There would be a distinct advantage in developing national standards with local enforcement. There should be no deviations for local schemes to avoid misunderstanding of rules for the unsuspecting visitor.

Q2: What would be the advantages and disadvantages of giving local authorities a new power to confiscate Badges (a) that have been cancelled and (b) that are being used by a third party for their own benefit?

It is probably not realistic to expect every single abuser of Blue Badges to be taken to court but if the badge were confiscated on the spot this would act as a preventative measure, as it would remove them from circulation immediately without the associated expense of court cases.

Knowing that their badge could be confiscated would also act as an effective deterrent for Blue Badge holders who might otherwise be tempted to loan their badges to other people temporarily.

If a badge is being used by a third party it is important to confiscate it so it can be reunited with its genuine owner. However if misuse is occurring with the owners knowledge e.g. within a family then they need to be given a formal warning and if it is found to be a repeated offence then it may be that the badge is suspended or removed permanently.

There should of course be an appeals procedure and an emphasis on educating badge holders as to their rights and responsibilities as well as punitive measures.

A possible disadvantage would be if the badge were being used by a family member / carer / friend without the badge holder's knowledge. In this case confiscation of the badge could have a detrimental affect on the badge holder's personal mobility. For this reason, the appeals & returns process should be as efficient as possible and cases where a genuine holder has been identified should be prioritised.

Q3: What would be the most appropriate circumstances in which such a power could be used?

When a CEO has spotted a cancelled/fake/expired badge and waits for the owner of the vehicle to return. They can then confiscate the badge.

When the CEO has observed both the vehicle's arrival and the driver's return to the vehicle, and in both cases the badge holder was not present.

Q4: What safeguards should be built into any new power?

It is important that CEOs are given protection by the law to seize badges and there should be a much harsher penalty for anyone who assaults a CEO. This should be the same as the sentence for assaulting a police officer rather than a member of the public.

In order to prevent Badges being confiscated unnecessarily and to streamline the appeals procedure, CEOs should be required to compile visual evidence of the badge, vehicle, driver and any passengers in the same way as they do for other parking and traffic offences e.g. video recordings, photographs etc.

In addition the expiry date on blue badges should be larger for easy recognition.

Q5: What would be the most effective ways of removing invalid Badges from circulation?

The request to return an expired badge on receipt of a new one should be worded a lot more strongly. At the moment many authorities just make the request but never chase up badges that fail to come in. An efficient method of cancelling Blue Badges that would help with this is holders could be informed that unless their expired badge is received by a certain date their new badge will be cancelled. A specific coloured marker e.g. banding round the edge could be added to badges issued in a certain year (similar to the colour coding of tax discs) so CEOs can spot expired badges a lot more easily and date tampering will be pointless.

Q6: Do you think that local authorities should be able to tow vehicles that (a) display cancelled or invalid Badges or (b) a third party is misusing a Badge for their own benefit?

DPTAC believes that vehicles displaying cancelled badges should be towed away in most cases. They are after all not displaying a valid badge. There are some reservations over cars showing expired badges being towed away as some genuine badge holders forget to renew their badges and if their car was towed away they would be considerably disadvantaged. However, if a fraud investigator or CEO is confident it is being used inappropriately then towing away may act as a deterrent to other badge abusers. The same could be said for third party abusers. Since this can not be determined by just looking at a badge one would presume that other evidence must have been gathered and therefore if the CEO is confident that abuse is taking place then I would support the vehicle being removed. However adapted vehicles should not be towed away as it may be the only transport suitable and available to the blue badge holder.

Q7: What would be the advantages and disadvantages of removing the current three relevant convictions requirement from the legislation?

The advantage is that it stops someone who is continually misusing their badge considerably sooner. If someone is caught once and then does it again then it is highly likely they will do it a third time. Removing the three relevant convictions gives more scope to authorities to act quickly where they know abuse is taking place but the person has not been officially convicted.

Q8: Should there be any additional grounds for refusing to issue a Badge? If so, what would you suggest and why?

Registered blind people automatically qualify for a Badge. The entitlement for a Badge should be reviewed and blind people should not automatically qualify for a badge unless other factors are present.

Elderly people can be slow and not as mobile as younger people but should not be eligible unless other factors are present. Learning disabilities again must be accompanied with other problems.

Where badges are issued to people with temporary mobility problems, there needs to be a proper system of review and recall.

Q9: Should there be any additional grounds for withdrawing a Badge? If so, what would you suggest and why?

Chapter 3

Q10: What would be an appropriate appeal route to deal with disputes over whether Badges should be withdrawn and unsuccessful applications?

It is essential that people who are refused a badge are able to appeal. Neighboring authorities could review cases which were turned down for each other or there could be a regional or national appeals centre. This would help with maintaining consistency.

Q11: What are your views on the suggestion that there should be more prescription from central government on eligibility assessment? What suggestions do you have on how this should be implemented?

There should be more prescription from central government on eligibility assessment as the present assessment procedure is woolly. If the scheme is to be fair and consistent it is essential that badges are administered in the same way to people who meet the same criteria.

The Blue Badge scheme should not rest solely with Local Authorities as this can lead to different implementations (especially with regard to the discretionary criteria). In Northern Ireland the responsibility for the Blue Badge schemes rests with the Department for Regional Development.

A more radical approach is required, namely to administer the scheme nationally. This will require a change to primary legislation but would have considerable merit in ensuring UK wide standards.

In addition, there should be an Occupational Therapist or Physiotherapist assessing the client. The assessor must have clear guidelines, training and a standard format for the assessment. The individuals GP should also provide a supporting medical report free of charge.

Q12: What do you think would be the advantages and disadvantages, and potential costs and benefits, of the Secretary of State taking a new power to require local authorities to use any data-sharing system?

DPTAC strongly supports the introduction of a new power to require local authorities to data share. Although it is hoped that most local authorities would do this voluntarily powers are required to ensure this happens.

Badges could be linked to one's national insurance number or NHS patient number and to the electronic patient record. This would help authorities check against misuse.

Cost saving calculations should include for the reduction in the issue of the Blue Badges following meaningful assessments.

Any cost saving achieved should be ring fenced and used to develop a national database and finance a chipping and monitoring process. A national helpline could be established for "whistle blowing".

Q13: What suggestions do you have as to how we could allow certain non-residents to apply for a Blue Badge?

DPTAC would support applications from people who are serving in the armed forces and their families as this would be easy to provide evidence of. However, providing badges to other non-residents does cause some concern. DPTAC would like further information on who these people are likely to be and why they can not get a badge in the country where they live.

Q14: What are your views on organisational Badges? What are your suggestions for how abuse might be prevented?

Abuse could be prevented by issuing organisational badges to a specific vehicle. This would prevent the badge being removed and used by employees for their own benefit. Organisations could then apply for a badge for each vehicle that they own, providing that they could demonstrate a genuine need for them.

Chapter 4: Extending eligibility to children between the ages of two and three [see paragraphs 110-126]

Q15: Do you agree with the way in which we propose to extend eligibility to children between the age of 2 and 3 with specific medical conditions?

Yes. DPTAC recognises that parents of severely disabled children under 3 who have to carry equipment such as oxygen cylinders will benefit from the ability to park close to their destination. We also recognise that in the majority of these cases personal transport is the only feasible way to get around. There does seem to be a discrepancy in that children under 2 can now qualify but children aged between 2 and 3 currently can't. This gap does need to be closed up.

Chapter 4: Extending eligibility to Service Personnel and War Veterans [see paragraphs127-134]

Q17: What are your views on this option?

Yes. In principle the proposal sounds fine. The only concern would be ensuring the badges were only given to those who meet the same criteria that civilians also have to meet. The scheme needs consistency and the rules must be the same for everybody. Funding must be on need, there must be monitoring to ensure that there is equity across the country and to restore the public's opinion of the use of the badge.

Please add any additional comments you wish to make

The research within the document is limited and some major presumptions have been made with little and dated evidence based statistics. There is little reference to interviews or consultations with Blue Badge users and there appears to be no reference to any response from the College of Occupational Therapist or any other professional body.

There needs to be a national advertising campaign to entrench moral values into society regarding misuse of badges and designated parking places so as to stigmatize in the same way as the highly successful drink drive campaign.

Consultation Responses: DfT consultation on Blue Badge eligibility and Local Authority funding for eligibility assessments