Blue Badge Refusal

[Mary Hill]

A friend has a blue badge at the moment and is up for renewal. They applied
for a new badge and were rejected; they appealed and it was rejected. Their
doctor is adamant that their permanent pain level warrants a blue badge (they
take approximately twenty prescription pain killers every day, and have
periodic epidural injections in the spine to relieve the pain. They have just
(over a period of many weeks) come off oxycontin (a Class A drug) as they
were really addicted to it. Doctors do not prescribe that without good reason.
The fact that they can walk with out a limp seems to be the reason they were
turned down.)

Is that the end of the road? Surely there is some appeal to a higher level.
I have read the advice to LAs and I am 100% certain that the friend is eligible
if the DfT guidelines are properly followed.
Can the LA be reported to the DfT for not following the guidelines properly.

I guess it is most unusual to not be able to appeal to a higher authority: is
that definitely the case?


(I have copied in uk.legal as I would be interested if there are any legal
pointers or suggestions)

[GB]

Hi, the criteria seem to have been tightened up or applied more strictly
recently. You need to fill the application form in to say that you can't
walk very far at all. (That's assuming it's true!) Otherwise, you aren't
eligible. It's almost entirely based on ability to walk, unless you
receive the Higher Rate of the Mobility Component of
the Disability Living Allowance, in which case it's an automatic
entitlement.

The eligibility criteria are set out here
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/blue-badge-can-i-get-one/blue-badge-guide.pdf

"If you are applying for a badge under this criterion you will
need to show that you have a permanent and substantial
disability which means:
� you are unable to walk: or
� you are unable to walk very far without experiencing very
considerable difficulty. This may include excessive pain and
breathlessness, or a deterioration of health brought on by
the effort needed to walk.
A permanent and substantial disability is one that is likely to
last for all of your life. Eligibility is not determined on the basis
of a particular diagnosis or condition. It is the effect of the
permanent disability on your ability to walk that is important.
Medical conditions such as asthma, autism, psychological/
behavioural problems, Crohn�s disease/incontinent conditions
and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) are not in themselves
a qualification for a badge. People with these conditions may
be eligible for a badge under this criterion, but only if they are
unable to walk or have very considerable difficulty in walking,
in addition to their condition.
Your local authority is responsible for deciding whether you
are eligible and may ask you to undergo a mobility assessment
with a medical professional such as a physiotherapist or
occupational therapist."

[Chris]

On 13/10/2012 16:37, Mary Hill wrote:
>

They have just
> (over a period of many weeks) come off oxycontin (a Class A drug) as they
> were really addicted to it. Doctors do not prescribe that without good reason.

I assure you that they do. Doctors find it easiest to just write a
'script rather than sort a problem out.

[Alex Heney]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:37:40 +0100, Mary Hill
<mary...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>A friend has a blue badge at the moment and is up for renewal. They applied
>for a new badge and were rejected; they appealed and it was rejected. Their
>doctor is adamant that their permanent pain level warrants a blue badge (they
>take approximately twenty prescription pain killers every day, and have
>periodic epidural injections in the spine to relieve the pain. They have just
>(over a period of many weeks) come off oxycontin (a Class A drug) as they
>were really addicted to it. Doctors do not prescribe that without good reason.
>The fact that they can walk with out a limp seems to be the reason they were
>turned down.)
>

Being in considerable pain most of the time is not actually a valid
reason for getting a blue badge.

It is all about how far you can walk.

>Is that the end of the road? Surely there is some appeal to a higher level.
>I have read the advice to LAs and I am 100% certain that the friend is eligible
>if the DfT guidelines are properly followed.

Not from what you have said - there must be more to it than having a
condition which causes constant pain.

>Can the LA be reported to the DfT for not following the guidelines properly.
>
>I guess it is most unusual to not be able to appeal to a higher authority: is
>that definitely the case?
>

What higher authority might there be in this case?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
You, you, and you, panic. Everyone else, come with me.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Peter Crosland]

On 13/10/2012 16:37, Mary Hill wrote:
>
>

From what you say your friend does qualify. Which local authority has
refused? What age is the applicant?

--
Regards Peter Crosland

[Chris]

What I would question is whether someone who takes 20 painkillers a day
and who is addicted to them should be behind the wheel of a car.

[ewill]

> and who is addicted to them should be behind the wheel of a car.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A blue badge holder doesn't have to be the driver , the badge can be
used by the driver when taking the holder somewhere or going to
collect them to enable them to park close to the p/u or d/o point

[GB]

On 14/10/2012 17:27, Peter Crosland wrote:

> From what you say your friend does qualify. Which local authority has
> refused? What age is the applicant?
>

What makes you think that? There is no suggestion that his friend cannot
walk.

[Mary Hill]

Perhaps you can point out what makes you think that the criteria is that one
"cannot walk"

[Mary Hill]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 17:55:59 +0100, Chris <9876...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>
>What I would question is whether someone who takes 20 painkillers a day
>and who is addicted to them should be behind the wheel of a car.
>

I would question your ability to read.

[Mary Hill]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 20:46:16 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:37:40 +0100, Mary Hill
><mary...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>A friend has a blue badge at the moment and is up for renewal. They applied
>>for a new badge and were rejected; they appealed and it was rejected. Their
>>doctor is adamant that their permanent pain level warrants a blue badge (they
>>take approximately twenty prescription pain killers every day, and have
>>periodic epidural injections in the spine to relieve the pain. They have just
>>(over a period of many weeks) come off oxycontin (a Class A drug) as they
>>were really addicted to it. Doctors do not prescribe that without good reason.
>>The fact that they can walk with out a limp seems to be the reason they were
>>turned down.)
>>
>
>Being in considerable pain most of the time is not actually a valid
>reason for getting a blue badge.

It is if walking itself causes the person to experience even more severe pain,
at the time of walking or later.

>It is all about how far you can walk.

Not on its own, it's not.

[GB]

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/blue-badge-can-i-get-one/blue-badge-guide.pdf


Pages 6 & 7.

I did quote all this previously.

[Mary Hill]

.............................. or very considerable difficulty in walking.

This may include excessive pain ............. brought on by the effort needed
to walk.

Further clarified in the advice to local authorities:

"It does not matter whether excessive pain or breathlessness occurs at the time
of walking, or later - what counts is that it is a direct result of their
attempt to walk."

[Mary Hill]

It will be Stockport or Manchester. Age:65

[GB]

> .............................. or very considerable difficulty in walking.
>
> This may include excessive pain ............. brought on by the effort needed
> to walk.
>
> Further clarified in the advice to local authorities:
>
> "It does not matter whether excessive pain or breathlessness occurs at the time
> of walking, or later - what counts is that it is a direct result of their
> attempt to walk."
>

I agree. You're quibbling because I said cannot walk, rather than
repeating stuff I had already said? Sheeesshhh.

[Mary Hill]

Spot on. I had not filed away what you had said previously - I had not even
recalled that you had said it. I was commenting on what you said in the post I
replied to. It is important that people do not assume that the criterion is
that you cannot walk. If you know that that is not the criterion, then you
should not say that it is. That appears to be part of the current problem with
assessments; if people *can* walk the stated distance but are in severe pain at
the time or later, then they are deemed not to need a blue badge; and that is
clearly not what the guidelines say.

[Yellow]

"Mary Hill" <mary...@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:kg2o781aod2ir5s9d...@4ax.com...

When there's a thread of discussion, it is not reasonable to expect every
post to contain every part of that discussion so if you choose to cherry
pick contextual comments as if they are written in isolation you are pretty
much always going to get the person who wrote those comments coming back at
you. It is the price you pay.

[Mary Hill]

It is nothing to do with cherry-picking. The reason for the original post was
concerning the reasons for rejection. If someone says that a person must "not
be able to walk", that is factually incorrect - and a key part of the complaint
about the processes. I am sorry I had to point that out to you.

[GB]

On 15/10/2012 14:07, Mary Hill wrote:

>
> Spot on. I had not filed away what you had said previously

Umm, why not? You asked a question on usenet, and within about half an
hour I gave you the complete answer you needed, including a reference.
However, you apparently did not read it. More fool you, really.

> - I had not even
> recalled that you had said it.

Quite!

> I was commenting on what you said in the post I
> replied to. It is important that people do not assume that the criterion is
> that you cannot walk. If you know that that is not the criterion, then you
> should not say that it is. That appears to be part of the current problem with
> assessments; if people *can* walk the stated distance but are in severe pain at
> the time or later, then they are deemed not to need a blue badge; and that is
> clearly not what the guidelines say.
>

Well, I agree with that - if it's actually the case. Have you told us
whether 'your friend' can walk or not? And how far?

[Mary Hill]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:35:41 +0100, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:

>On 15/10/2012 14:07, Mary Hill wrote:
>
>>
>> Spot on. I had not filed away what you had said previously
>
>Umm, why not? You asked a question on usenet, and within about half an
>hour I gave you the complete answer you needed, including a reference.
>However, you apparently did not read it. More fool you, really.

I had read what you had said: I had then read the document you referenced.
I did not file it away as "Oh this is the view of GB - I must remember that it
was him who said it just in case he later says something different at odds with
his earlier post"

>> - I had not even
>> recalled that you had said it.
>
>Quite!

ie *you* personally.

When *you* claimed that you had to be able to walk - you were wrong. You had
obviously not understood the referenced document you gave.

>> I was commenting on what you said in the post I
>> replied to. It is important that people do not assume that the criterion is
>> that you cannot walk. If you know that that is not the criterion, then you
>> should not say that it is. That appears to be part of the current problem with
>> assessments; if people *can* walk the stated distance but are in severe pain at
>> the time or later, then they are deemed not to need a blue badge; and that is
>> clearly not what the guidelines say.
>>
>
>Well, I agree with that - if it's actually the case. Have you told us
>whether 'your friend' can walk or not? And how far?
>

They can physically walk. All walking causes pain either/both at the time or
shortly after. Any distance over a few yards. Some days worse than others.

[Peter Crosland]

Have you had a look at the website for nthe local authority concerned.
They usually spell out the criteria. Is the person receiving the Higher
Rate Mobility Allowance? If they are then they are automatically
entitled to the badge because the criteria for claiming the benefit is
exactly y the same.




--
Regards Peter Crosland

[GB]

On 15/10/2012 17:07, Mary Hill wrote:

> When *you* claimed that you had to be able to walk - you were wrong. You had
> obviously not understood the referenced document you gave.

You seriously think that?

>
>>> I was commenting on what you said in the post I
>>> replied to. It is important that people do not assume that the criterion is
>>> that you cannot walk. If you know that that is not the criterion, then you
>>> should not say that it is. That appears to be part of the current problem with
>>> assessments; if people *can* walk the stated distance but are in severe pain at
>>> the time or later, then they are deemed not to need a blue badge; and that is
>>> clearly not what the guidelines say.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I agree with that - if it's actually the case. Have you told us
>> whether 'your friend' can walk or not? And how far?
>>
>
> They can physically walk. All walking causes pain either/both at the time or
> shortly after. Any distance over a few yards. Some days worse than others.
>

Did they make that clear by ticking the right boxes on the form? How
much pain, and is it permanent? Have they had an assessment, or is it
just based on the form?

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:28:20 +0100, Mary Hill

<mary...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 20:46:16 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:37:40 +0100, Mary Hill
>><mary...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>A friend has a blue badge at the moment and is up for renewal. They applied
>>>for a new badge and were rejected; they appealed and it was rejected. Their
>>>doctor is adamant that their permanent pain level warrants a blue badge (they
>>>take approximately twenty prescription pain killers every day, and have
>>>periodic epidural injections in the spine to relieve the pain. They have just
>>>(over a period of many weeks) come off oxycontin (a Class A drug) as they
>>>were really addicted to it. Doctors do not prescribe that without good reason.
>>>The fact that they can walk with out a limp seems to be the reason they were
>>>turned down.)
>>>
>>
>>Being in considerable pain most of the time is not actually a valid
>>reason for getting a blue badge.
>
>It is if walking itself causes the person to experience even more severe pain,
>at the time of walking or later.
>

As I said "Being in considerable pain most of the time is not actually

a valid reason for getting a blue badge."

You can't say "it is if..." when the if introduces further conditions
(which you had not told us about in the original post BTW).

>>It is all about how far you can walk.
>
>Not on its own, it's not.

For all practical purposes, that is the main test.

If you can walk more than a (rather short IMO) distance without
significant additional pain, then you will not be entitled to a blue
badge unless in receipt of the appropriate allowance.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

I'm so broke, I can't even pay attention.

[jf]

In article <d3767d68-906f-4b1c-8da9-4a26cdc46da3
@b15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, wille...@gmail.com says...

SCC, in common with many other disctrict councils, use their own
assessors to determine whether or not a person is entitled. My Will Of
God folk like exeption badses cos they are free. W.O.G. folk like
freebees.

Jim Follett

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Alan Holmes]

"jf" <ja...@james-follett.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.2aeb3ea3c...@freenews.netfront.net...

Blue bagdes are not free!