The Blue Badge Parking Scheme for Disabled People

Introduction

1: This report sets out the thoughts of the Motorists' Forum Blue Badge Working Group that was established to consider the changes to the Blue Badge Scheme set out in the DTLR discussion paper on this matter.

2: The Working Group consisted of members from The Disabled Drivers' Association, Motability, RAC Motoring Services, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the National Federation of Women's Institutes and Kent County Council (on behalf of the CSS who were in turn representing the Local Government Association).

3: The full Motorists' Forum has endorsed this report.

Eligibility

Eligibility Criteria

4: There was clear agreement between members that badges should only be issued to those with the greatest need. In this respect, the difficulties that the issue of badges under the discretionary criterion caused was noted and there was recognition that the removal of this criterion for the under 65s would help to ensure a more consistent approach to the issue of badges. However, it was also recognised that the removal of the discretionary criterion for the under 65s could cause problems for this group - for the reasons outlined in the discussion paper - and that the problems lay not with having a discretionary criterion, but in the way it was administered. For these reasons, the Group did not support the removal of the discretionary criterion for the under 65s.

5: The Group recommended that eligibility should be extended to children under 2 whose physical needs require the transport of medical and other support equipment at all times. It recognised the special needs of such children and parents and considered that the lower age limit for a badge should not be applied to this group.

6: There is one further issue regarding eligibility of badges that was not referred to in this section - but which is touched on in paragraph 3.6.4 - that the Group considered merited specific mention. Should it be decided to tighten the eligibility criteria for a badge, the Group recommended that all existing badge holders should retain Grandfather Rights to their badge with the caveat that those who had obtained their badge fraudulently would not retain such a Grandfather Right. The reason we recommend this is that any decision to tighten the eligibility criteria is bound to be opposed strongly by those existing badge holders who face the possibility of losing their badge. In such circumstances, there must be a danger that Government will decide not to move to tighten the eligibility criteria and that the longer-term benefits that will arise from a stronger and more strictly controlled eligibility criteria will not accrue.

Assessing Eligibility

7: The Group was advised that a number of authorities were moving away from using GPs to using their own health specialists. This was leading to much more independent assessments taking place and also removed the pressure for GPs to recommend the issue of badges to their patients (for fear of jeopardising their doctor/patient relationship). It was also pointed out that GPs might, in any event, not be best placed to comment on an applicant's disability. In the light of this, the Group recommended that GPs should not be used in the assessment of an application prior to the issue (or rejection of an issue) of a badge.

8: It was also agreed that it was desirable for a detailed, standard questionnaire to be developed. (It was thought that this would help avoid the inconsistencies in the issue of badges between authorities). This is also relevant to the question posed in paragraph 3.1.3. No recommendations were made on the type of questionnaire that should be developed.

Administration

Responsibility for the Scheme

9: The main issue that was discussed here concerned whether responsibility for the administration of the Scheme should remain with local authorities or be passed to a third party. It was pointed out that Northern Ireland had a single point of issue for badges and that as a consequence, far fewer badges were issued under the discretionary criterion here than elsewhere in the UK.

10: In general, the Group supported a move towards the administration of the Scheme by a third party provided a degree of local involvement remained (although there were some reservations expressed by the local government representative in adopting such an approach). The Group recognised that by centralising the administration, this could help reduce the inconsistencies in the issue of badges between authorities. It also thought that it would help overcome the difficulties that could sometimes arise when local authority councillors intervened in the issue of badges.

11: The Group also drew attention to the possible synergies that could arise from centralising the administration of the Scheme. It highlighted the potential cost savings that could arise by removing the administration of the Scheme from local authorities to a central point.

12: It also considered that the creation of a central database of badge holders offered many advantages, particularly as regards the enforcement of the Scheme. For example, enforcement officers would be able to check with just one point whether a badge was valid or whether it had been reported lost or stolen; it would enable lost or stolen badges to be identified more easily; it could also help authorities identify bona-fide badge holders in relation to exemptions from charging schemes. A central database could also help overcome one of the perceived difficulties of introducing temporary badges - i.e. it would enable greater control to be exercised on badges issued for a short period of time.

13: The Group agreed that even if administration was passed to a central point, it was imperative that some form of local involvement continued.

14: There was one other point raised regarding the administration of the Scheme. Members suggested that applicants should be required to supply the most recent Benefit Agency letter announcing entitlement to an allowance, which in turn gave entitlement to a disabled badge. This would help to safeguard against people claiming a badge on the basis of receipt of an allowance they were actually no longer receiving.

15: As the Group was generally in favour of moving the administration of the Scheme to a third party, it did not discuss in detail in which local authority department the administration of the Scheme should lay with. However, the advantages that could accrue between establishing effective partnerships between social services and highways departments were recognised.

Period of Issue of Badges

16: The Group agreed that 3 years was about the right time for a badge to remain valid. It was considered that increasing the period of validity of a badge would increase the badge's desirability and make it more prone to theft. A 3-year period also tied in with the period before the road markings used to specify a disabled persons space needed repainting. A renewal process at this stage therefore provided a good opportunity for a local authority to check that a disabled space was still required.

Fees

17: The Group agreed that the current fee of £2 for the issue of a badge was widely out-of-date. However, there was no agreement on whether the fee should be scrapped all together or increased.

18: On the one hand, there was a view that there should be no fee for the issue of a badge. Society should be looking to empower disabled people to travel and as seriously disabled people were unable to use public transport, they should not be charged for their mobility requirements. It was suggested that local authorities should meet their administrative costs either from their parking revenue or by means of Government support.

19: On the other hand, there was some support for the proposition that disabled people, particularly those who could afford to do so, should meet at least part of the costs of issuing a badge (put at about £20 in total). It was suggested that an upper fee limit should be introduced, and authorities given discretion as to whether a charge was levied or not.

Appeal System

20: There was full agreement that there was a need for an appeals system. One suggestion was that the Parking Adjudicator could handle this in future.

Renewal Process

21: The Group agreed that a proper renewal process should be put in place so that badge holders were assessed to ensure that their circumstances still justified the issue of a badge. We draw your attention to the comments in paragraph 5 of this report regarding renewal of badges in the event of the eligibility criteria being tightened.

22: There was agreement that authorities should be required to send reminder notices to badge holders that their badges are due for renewal. However, the suggestion that badge holders should be required to return their badge before a new one was issued was not supported.

23: The question of the setting-up of a national database of badge holders is referred to in paragraph 12 of this report.

Duplicate Badges

24: The Group agreed that duplicate badges should continue to be issued and that authorities should take all reasonable steps to ensure that badges that were reported as having been lost or stolen could not be re-used. It was agreed that authorities should cease the practice of re-numbering a duplicate badge with the same number as the badge it was replacing.

Temporary Badges

25: There were differing views on whether temporary badges should be issued. There was a view that temporarily disabled people could have the same mobility problems as those who were permanently disabled whilst awaiting an operation to restore their mobility and therefore should have a badge. Against this, the issue of temporary badges was seen as potentially leading to increased bureaucracy and increasing the scope for abuse. There was also no agreement on how long the effect of an impairment should be to merit the award of a temporary badge. In conclusion, the Group agreed that there was scope for the issue of temporary badges but that there was a need for strict controls to be brought in on the issue and use of such badges.

Institutional Badges

26: The Group agreed that the issue of institutional badges should be discontinued. It was agreed that as a badge holder could use his own badge on an institution's vehicle, there was no need for an institutional badge.

Concessions

Local Disabled Persons' Parking Schemes

27: There was agreement that such schemes undermined the national scheme and placed unnecessary restrictions in the path of disabled people. The Group agreed that such schemes should be discouraged.

Central London Exemption from the Scheme

28: The Group agreed that the exemption allowing the four Central London boroughs not to participate in the Scheme should be removed. It was felt that traffic congestion in many city centres was on a par with that suffered in London and these city centres provided full parking concessions for disabled people. In addition, the Group did not believe that an extension of the Scheme to London would lead to a sudden influx of badge holders given the difficulties of driving in London.

Length of Time

29: The Group considered that the current length of time that badge holders are allowed to park on yellow lines - 3 hours - was about right and did not recommend any change. There was general agreement that such a period was sufficient for disabled people to conduct their business. There was no support for allowing parking without time limit by badge holders on yellow lines and agreement that it was the responsibility of employers to arrange parking facilities for disabled people where this was required all day.

Enforcement

Wider Checking of Badges

30: The Group agreed that there was a clear need for legislation to be introduced as soon as possible allowing badges to be inspected by the enforcement authorities.

31: The Group also concluded that primary responsibility for enforcement of the Scheme should rest with local authority parking attendants. It recognised that with the many competing demands on police time, this limited the manpower that the police could direct to enforcing parking restrictions, including those relating to the Blue Badge Scheme. It agreed therefore that with the decriminalisation of parking, enforcement of the Scheme should lay with local authority parking attendants and that the police should not be involved in the process. There was also support for the proposition that even in areas where local authorities had not taken decriminalisation powers, authorities should have prime responsibility for the Scheme's enforcement.

32: There was, however, some concern as to whether traffic wardens and local authority parking attendants should also have the power to seize a badge in addition to the police. After discussion, it was agreed that if traffic wardens and local authority parking attendants were to be given the power to inspect a badge, it followed that they should also have the power to seize a badge where misuse was suspected. Accordingly, the Group recommended that all enforcement bodies should have the power to seize a badge provided proper checks and controls were in place and that such staff had received appropriate training.

Issuing Penalty Notices

33: The Group did not understand fully the question posed in paragraph 5.3.4. and so was unable to comment on it. However, one suggestion that was made in connection with curbing abuse of the scheme was that a hot line should be set up where people mis-using badges could be reported. This would enable disabled people themselves to play a more active role in curbing abuse of the Scheme.

Abuse by Badge Holders

34: The Group recognised that because badge holders' medical conditions could vary from day to day, it did not always follow that badge holders who appeared to be walking without difficulty were mis-using a badge. Care therefore needed to be exercised in tackling such perceived abuse. However, the Group also recommended that where abuse by badge holders was clearly taking place, relevant penalties should be imposed.

Abuse by Non-disabled People

35: There was clear agreement that abuse of the Scheme by non-disabled people needed to be tackled effectively. The Group recommended specifically that the penalty for misuse of a disabled space by a non-disabled person should be higher than that imposed for other parking offences. There was also a suggestion that the offence should be made endorseable but this proposal was not supported by all members.

Providing Information about the Scheme

36: The Group agreed that there was a need for a focused education campaign to be mounted. This should have 2 strands - the first aimed at disabled people themselves to ensure they understood the concessions provided under the Scheme and so did not mis-use their badge unintentionally; the second designed to raise the awareness of non-disabled people to the importance of the Scheme to disabled people and to make clear why the concessions provided under the Scheme should not be mis-used by non-disabled people.