Disabled Persons' Parking Badge Scheme
(The Blue Badge Scheme)

3. Options for Change - Administration

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 There was wide recognition in the discussions of the variations in the current administration system between different local authorities and this was felt to be a significant weakness of the current approach. Some authorities report that administering the scheme has become too much of a burden given the increasing numbers on issue. Yet there was a suggestion that in some cases there may be a tendency to approve rather than refuse applications for fear of the time that would be taken to justify a refusal.

3.1.2 It was suggested that a good practice guide should be produced to help local authorities adopt efficient and effective administration systems. This would be developed in close consultation with local authorities.

3.1.3 Recommendations on administration methods to ensure a consistent approach to administration of the scheme are invited.

3.2 Responsibility for the Scheme within the Local Authority

3.2.1 Responsibility for administration rests with local authorities, except in Northern Ireland where the scheme is operated centrally. DPTAC recommended that responsibility for administration in the local authority should be moved from Social Services to the Highways Department so that one department would be responsible for issuing badges, providing parking bays and regulating on-street and off-street parking.

3.2.2 In that way it was argued that the Highways Department may have a greater incentive to improve enforcement and the number of disabled parking spaces. It may not have the same depth of understanding of the problems faced by disabled people.

3.2.3 Conversely it was pointed out in discussion that the Social Services Department may have a wider appreciation of disability issues and how they affect everyday life.

3.2.4 An alternative to retaining administration within one department would be to make the two departments jointly responsible. Local authorities are less compartmentalised these days and are developing ways of dealing with the numerous issues that cut across departmental boundaries.

3.2.5 A more radical approach, requiring a change to primary legislation was proposed which would be to move administration of the Scheme to a third party with one body, with regional coverage, having responsibility for the administration. It was argued that this could ensure a more consistent interpretation of the Regulations and guidance issued. One possible approach emerging from the discussion groups would be to give this role to a national disability organisation with the necessary expertise and resources to carry out the task effectively contracting in such services as healthcare advice as necessary. It was suggested that this would give the scheme more credibility among disability organisations, but it was recognised that local authorities, and enforcement authorities, would have to be convinced of the suitability of the chosen organisation to carry out this role effectively.

3.2.6 There was no consensus within discussion groups on this issue and respondents are invited to make recommendations.

3.3 Period of Issue of Badges

3.3.1 The need for temporary badges is discussed elsewhere in this paper (see Section 3.8); this section is concerned with the period for which blue badges are issued, currently three years. It is argued that if someone has a long-term disability they should not have to reapply to the scheme every three years, as now, but should be given the concession for an unlimited period.

3.3.2 To provide a badge for an unlimited period to relevant people has obvious advantages to the individual and reduces the administrative load. However, there may be concern that issuing such a badge could be too open to abuse, for example badges might not be returned to the local authority on the death of the holder.

3.3.3 An alternative approach, to extend the issue period from three years for all, was proposed to reduce the administrative load and would require badge holders to reapply less often.

3.3.4 Providing the link with DLA remains, it is suggested there may be a case to link the period of issue of the blue badge to that of receipt of DLA where the benefit is awarded for a period less than the standard issue period of a badge. Currently, if DLA is taken away after a year, the individual may retain their blue badge under the automatic criteria until the end of the three year period. Though clearly the recipient could re-apply under the discretionary criteria.

3.3.5 Recommendations are welcomed on the period of issue.

3.4 Fees

3.4.1 The current £2 charge for a badge is widely regarded as out-of-date and not worth collecting. Indeed, some local authorities have already abandoned it. If improvements to the administration of the scheme are adopted then local authorities may perceive no other option than to make a realistic charge for administration. Recovering the full costs of the scheme through charging badge holders is likely to meet with opposition. Those representing them in the discussion groups felt that some increase would be acceptable but full cost recovery would not.

3.4.2 It was also considered important to have a fee for issuing duplicate badges to prevent abuse. It was widely agreed, however, that if a badge was stolen and the person was in possession of a crime number, they should not have to pay for a duplicate.

3.4.3 We would like to receive recommendations on the level of fees.

3.5 Appeal System

3.5.1 There is no statutory system of appeal against refusal of an application (although some local authorities have developed one). In other cases, there is a de facto system of appeal when an applicant who has been refused a badge contacts their local councillor. Under certain circumstances, it is also possible to appeal against the withdrawal of a badge^[2]. There was general agreement in the discussion groups that there should be a right of appeal against refusal of a badge and that applicants should be informed of this.

3.5.2 The likelihood of appeals will (most probably) be linked to the degree of flexibility and discretion allowed in the eligibility criteria. If these categories are tightened it could lead to fewer appeals. In considering this question, therefore, it is extremely important for respondents to consider the eligibility issues first.

3.5.3 Recommendations on whether an appeal system should be established, and if so, its form, are invited.

3.6 Renewal Process

3.6.1 The renewal process was widely seen in the discussion groups as too lax. It was felt that once a person had a badge it was easy to get another, as very few renewals are checked to ensure that the individual's circumstances still justify the issue of a badge.

3.6.2 DPTAC recommended that consideration should be given to requiring local authorities to reassess all applicants as part of the three year cycle. For example, applicants would have to produce a statement certifying that they continue to receive the higher rate mobility component of DLA or be re-assessed according to the discretionary criteria. This is already the case in Northern Ireland.

3.6.3 Within the discussions it was questioned whether reassessment every three years was necessary for all applicants. It was argued that for many people their disability is unlikely to change and therefore it would be a waste of resources to re-assess them at each renewal. It was noted that the issue of reassessment has to be considered alongside the question of the period of issue of the badge; a change in that area may have repercussions for the renewal process.

3.6.4 If the eligibility criteria are more tightly specified it was suggested that there might be a need to carry out re-assessments for the three years (subject to the outcome of this review - see section 3.3) following their introduction to ensure that all those with a badge meet the new criteria. Once that period was over, however, there would be less need to carry out re-assessments of all applications.

3.6.5 DPTAC recommended that local authorities should keep adequate records so that reminders can be sent out for renewals and badges may be called back if necessary. This was widely supported. Badge holders welcomed the idea of receiving a reminder to ensure they obtain a new badge before their old one expires.

3.6.6 Efforts to improve the recall of badges have already been adopted in some areas e.g. Northern Ireland (where the return rate is 15-20%), but there is considerable scope for increasing the number of returns. It is recognised however that this is a difficult task and issues around local authority resources will need to be considered.

3.6.7 The only way to ensure that old badges are returned is not to issue a new badge until the previous one is returned. However, this would deprive the badge holder of the parking concessions until the new badge was received and it would do nothing to prevent abuse by those claiming to have lost their old badge.

3.6.8 It was pointed out that if local authorities are to facilitate the efficient issue of renewals they must improve their registers of badge holders that are required under Section 21(5) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. This would ease the recall of badges and allow details to be checked thereby facilitating stricter enforcement. There was agreement in the discussion groups that the format of such databases should be standardised and there could be a case for developing a national database of badge holders. This could also facilitate checking badges to reduce abuse of the scheme, which is discussed in Chapter 5 on enforcement. However, the resources required to maintain an up-to-date database would need to be considered.

3.6.9 Recommendations are invited on the need for reassessments and the system for recalling badges.

3.7 Duplicate Badges

3.7.1 If badges are reported as lost or stolen there is little the local authority can do apart from issue a new one. This is the case even if people continually lose their badge and apply for new ones. In some areas people are asked to report stolen badges to the police and get a crime number, but in reality it is unlikely that they will be recovered.

3.7.2 Stakeholders considered there to be a need to standardise procedures for issuing duplicate badges. For example, some authorities currently re-issue badges with the same serial number as the original, which makes it impossible to track abuse.

3.7.3 Recommendations on how to deal with lost or stolen badges would be welcomed.

3.8 Temporary Badges

3.8.1 Blue badges are currently issued for a period of three years and guidelines indicate that badges should be issued only to those who are permanently disabled. The TRL survey showed however that some local authorities have been awarding badges to those with temporary or intermittent disabilities.

3.8.2 The discussion groups acknowledged that the effect of some disabilities on mobility can diminish, for example following hip replacement, and generally agreed that, in principle, those who are temporarily disabled should be able to apply for a blue badge.

3.8.3 The discussion groups agreed that it would not be practical to issue badges in cases where the effect of the impairment was likely to be short term but reached no consensus on what the minimum period should be.

3.8.4 Recommendations would be welcome on whether temporary badges should be introduced and if so under what conditions.

3.9 Institutional Badges

3.9.1 Currently approximately 1% of blue badges are issued to institutions. Concerns have been expressed about the potential for abuse of such badges and the discussions suggested that the eligibility criteria for these badges should be tightened up. One suggestion was that an institutional badge should only be issued to those organisations with a specially adapted vehicle.

3.9.2 An alternative suggested was to abolish the institutional badge altogether and for institutions providing transport for disabled people to rely on the badges held by their passengers.

3.9.3 It has been suggested that there should be a significant increase in cost for institutional badges.

3.9.4 Recommendations on the future of the institutional badge and the level of fees are particularly welcome.