Blue Badge Reform Programme: a Consultation Document

Blue Badge Reform Programme: A Consultation Document

Response from the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB)

July 2010

1. About us

As the largest organisation of blind and partially sighted people in the UK, RNIB is pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this consultation.

We are a membership organisation with over 10,000 members who are blind, partially sighted or the friends and family of people with sight loss. 80 per cent of our Trustees and Assembly Members are blind or partially sighted. We encourage members to be involved in our work and regularly consult with them on government policy and their ideas for change.

As a campaigning organisation of blind and partially sighted people, we fight for the rights of people with sight loss in each of the UK’s countries.

During the next five years we want to tackle the isolation of sight loss by focusing on three clear priorities:

1. Stopping people losing their sight unnecessarily;

2. Supporting blind and partially sighted people to live independent lives; and

3. Creating a society that is inclusive of blind and partially sighted people.

We also provide expert knowledge to business and the public sector through consultancy on improving the accessibility of the built environment, technology, products and services.

2. Consultation response

Question 1: 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and disadvantages of a new power to cancel Badges that are reported as lost or stolen, or have expired, or are withdrawn for misuse?

We support a new power to cancel badges that are reported lost or stolen or are expired. The advantage would be that fewer invalid badges, or badges which are not needed would be in circulation and potentially open to abuse.

One potential disadvantage which needs to be avoided is of badges being wrongly cancelled or withdrawn for perceived misuse when in fact the badge was being used correctly. Mechanisms need to be put in place, including disability awareness training of enforcement officers and an effective and accessible appeals mechanism, to ensure incidences of this are kept to a minimum.

Question 2: 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

We welcome the power for local authorities to confiscate badges that have been cancelled, as this would remove invalid badges from circulation. However, provisions would be made to ensure that the information used to confiscate cancelled badges is accurate and up-to-date.

The situation is more complex where it is believed that badges are being used by a third party for their own benefit. Many people have hidden disabilities which impact significantly on mobility which are often not well understood, including people who are blind or partially sighted. There is low public awareness of the impact of sight loss - whether partial or total - on mobility. It is therefore a concern that individual enforcement officers may confiscate badges rightly used by the drivers of people who are blind or partially sighted, believing them to be used inappropriately. This would cause significant distress as well as inconvenience for those involved.

Enforcement officers should receive disability awareness training covering a range of disabilities, particularly relating to the mobility difficulties faced by people with hidden disabilities.

Question 3: What would be the most appropriate circumstances in which such a power should be used?

We believe benefits of the Blue Badge should be available when the Blue Badge holder is in the vehicle, or if they were in the vehicle when it was parked in that place or close by and/or they will enter the vehicle to leave from that place or close by. The Blue Badge holder will not be in the vehicle at all times and it must be remembered that the Blue Badge holder in many cases will not be the person driving the vehicle.

We support the removal of the Blue Badge and its return to the Badge holder if it is clearly being used by a third party for their own benefit. However, this should only be done if this is uncontested by the individual and/or there is no possibility that the badge was being used appropriately.

Question 4: What safeguards would be built into this new power?

A Badge should only be confiscated if the allegation of misuse is uncontested by the individual and/or there is no possibility that the badge was being used appropriately. Where an individual claims they are using a Badge appropriately, and there is any possibility that this is correct, the Badge should not be confiscated but the situation should be investigated further.

We would like more information regarding how local authority officers will assess if the wrong person is in possession of a Badge and what measures that will be taken to protect individuals with hidden disabilities, or those driving for them, from allegations of improper use of their Badge.

As stated previously, enforcement officers should receive disability awareness training covering a range of disabilities, particularly relating to the mobility difficulties faced by people with more hidden disabilities.

Question 5: What would be the most effective ways of removing invalid Badges from circulation?

We would suggest that Badges could be issued every year and in different colours in a similar way to tax discs. The application form for this process will need to be accessible to people who are blind and partially sighted. We support moves to make the distribution and supply of badges more secure.

Question 6: 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

We would only support a power for local authorities to tow away vehicles that are displaying Blue Badges that are cancelled if they are causing an obstruction which is causing a danger to pedestrians or other road users. We believe this power already exists. If a vehicle is parked in areas for non-Blue Badge holders, or they are not causing an obstruction which is causing a danger to pedestrians or other road users, they should not be towed.

However, in general, if a Blue Badge is cancelled or invalid, a letter should be sent to the Blue Badge holder (ensuring the letter is in a format which is accessible to the Blue Badge holder) but the vehicle should not be towed. Blind and partially sighted people are unlikely to be able to read any expiry date on a Badge and so may realise it has expired and often do not receive any letter (or one which is accessible to them) saying that their Badge is due to expire or know that they have been sent a new one. Towing their vehicle is likely to cause extreme distress if the Badge holder has not intentionally used an invalid Badge. This is particularly as blind and partially sighted people are often not the owners of the vehicle themselves, and often rely on family and friends for transport.

We assume that vehicles will only be towed if they are parked and there is no-one present with the vehicle at the time. It is therefore unclear how a local authority enforcement officer would establish whether a Blue Badge is being misused by a third party. We do not think therefore that cars should be towed in this situation.

Question 7: What would be the advantages and disadvantages of removing the current three relevant convictions requirement from the legislation?

We have no comment to make on this question.

Question 8: Should there be any additional grounds for withdrawing a badge? If so what would you suggest and why?

We have no comment to make on this question.

Question 9: Should there be any additional grounds for withdrawing a badge and why?

We have no comment to make on this question.

Question 10: What would be an appropriate route to deal with disputes over whether badges should be withdrawn and unsuccessful applications?

A clear and accessible method needs to be available for appeals, and any information about this mechanism should be pro-actively provided to everyone whose badge is withdrawn or whose application is unsuccessful

The method for appeal needs to be accessible for blind and partially sighted people. We would expect the channels for dispute to be available both online and in paper format, and there should be a means to submit an appeal by telephone is a person is unable to fill in a form themselves.

It should be ensured that information about the appeals procedure and any forms to be completed are fully accessible to blind and partially sighted people. It is not acceptable to expect a blind or partially sighted to ask someone else to read their personal mail for them.

Website-based information and forms need to be accessible for use by people using screen-reading software. Non web-based information should be sent in a minimum of 14 point print, and should also be available in Braille, large print, audio CD and as an accessible Word document, or other format as notified by the individual. The preferred reading format of individuals should be recorded and systems put in place to ensure all information is sent to them in their preferred format, in accordance with the Equality Act 2010.

Question 11: 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?

We support standardised criteria as different local rules causes confusion. However, we do not want to see a reduction in overall eligibility amongst blind and partially sighted people for this important benefit.

For blind and partially sighted people, mobility and the ability to get around safely and independently is one of the greatest difficulties faced. Although generally people can "walk" in the physical sense, they often have great difficulty in orientation and route finding, crossing roads safely, and avoiding obstacles and dangers. This is particularly the case in unfamiliar places. Many blind and partially sighted people simply do not go to unfamiliar places or places where they find it difficult or dangerous to navigate. A Blue Badge enables a blind or partially sighted people to be driven to a place close to their destination so that they can then get reach their destination with the least possible danger and difficulty. This means they can attend appointments and activities and increases their inclusion in society.

We would support receipt of higher rate mobility component of DLA as one way of receiving automatic entitlement to a Blue Badge. However, this should not be the only means of obtaining one.

From April 2011, people with the most severe sight loss will become eligible for the higher rate mobility component of DLA if they meet the relevant criteria. However, not all people who are registered as being severely sight impaired will meet these very tight criteria. They nevertheless have a great deal of difficulty in walking and being able to reach a destination safely. Currently, people who are registered severely sight impaired are also eligible for Blue Badges. We would argue strongly that registration as severely sight impaired should also provide automatic entitlement to a Blue Badge.

If medical assessments are to be introduced, we are very concerned that the criteria suggested are worded as "an inability to walk or very considerable difficulty walking". This could be interpreted as excluding people such as people who are blind or partially sighted and also people with severe autism or learning disabilities. Walking involves a great deal more than the physical act of placing one foot in front of the other. It also involves orientation and way-finding, perceiving danger and obstacles and being able to take appropriate action. Any medical assessment must therefore take full account of the person's ability to get from A to B safely, in familiar as well as unfamiliar circumstances.

Question 12:

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?

We have no comment to make on this issue.

Question 13: What suggestions do you have as to how we could allow certain non-residents to apply for a Blue Badge?

We have no comment to make on this issue.

Question 14: What are your views on organisations badges? What are your suggestions for how abuse might be prevented?

Blue Badges are essential for organisations that support people who have mobility difficulties to help them take part in activities and get to appointments. An example might be a local service for blind and partially sighted people, some of whom may well have other disabilities, who want to take a group of people to the local swimming pool or theatre. Being able to stop and park nearby makes the trip much easier and safer. If they are unable to stop and park close by, many more staff are likely to be needed to escort people to the venue, which may mean the trip cannot take place at all.

Organisational badges are very useful and should be retained. However, it should be made clear to organisations that the badge is only to be used when people with mobility difficulties are travelling or being picked up, and that repeated misuse will be investigated which may lead to the withdrawal of the Badge.

Question 15: 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?

We have no comment to make on this issue.

Question 16: Do you have any comments on these proposed transitional arrangements? Please provide information to support your decision