Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her blue badge applications under the hidden disabilities criteria. She said this negatively impacts her due to the anxiety and stress she experiences when travelling. We did not find the Council at fault for how it decided to decline her applications.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has failed to properly consider her hidden disabilities in refusing her applications and appeals for a blue badge. This has caused her significant frustration and distress as she struggles with anxiety and stress when trying to manage her journeys, due to her Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I discussed the complaint with Mr Y (who is dealing with the complaint on Miss X’s behalf) and considered his views.
5. I considered evidence provided by the Council in relation to Miss X’s applications, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr Y, Miss X, and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant administrative background

The Blue badge scheme

7. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue badge Scheme helps people with severe physical mobility problems, or other conditions affecting their mobility, to access goods and services. It does this by allowing them to park near their destination. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing applicants’ eligibility for the badge.
8. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
9. The guidance says councils must make sure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation.
10. There are two types of eligibility criteria:

• where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a blue badge;
• where a person is eligible subject to further assessment, they have to fulfil one or more of three criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:
• drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and be unable to operate, or have considerable difficulty operating, all or some types of parking meter; or
• have been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring or substantial disability, which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk or experience very considerable difficulty walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress; or
• be at risk of serious harm when walking, or pose a serious risk of harm to any other person.

11. Under “general guidance on assessing and determining eligibility”, the guidance states:
• “…it should be remembered that “very considerable difficulty whilst walking” and “serious harm” during the course of a journey are high thresholds that should be applied to all applicants equally, whether their disability is visible or non-visible (‘hidden’) (Paragraph 4.80).
• “It is important that local authorities give both physical and non-visible (‘hidden’) enduring and substantial disabilities which cause walking difficulty due consideration when determining an applicant’s eligibility in relation to the ‘subject to further assessment’ criteria” (Paragraph 4.82).
12. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

Application 1

13. In autumn 2024, Miss X applied for a blue badge under the non-visible (hidden) disability criteria. She has a diagnosis of ADHD.
14. She explained how significantly she was affected with stress and anxiety when planning, following a journey or parking in crowded areas. She also said she had a lack of awareness with her actions, imposing a risk to herself and others.
15. She submitted supporting documents including medication information and NHS letters about her ADHD. She had a 2022 Personal Independence Payment (“PIP”) letter with the entitlement under the mobility category. She had 4 points out of 12 under “planning and following a journey”. It said she needed prompting with a journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress.
16. An expert assessor completed a report and declined her application. Miss X appealed. She said her struggles with managing journeys along with anxiety were symptoms and outcomes of her ADHD and this had become worse. She attached other documents, including further NHS letters. An expert assessor completed the appeal report and declined her application.
17. In both above reports, the assessor reviewed Miss X’s evidence and considered them against each criteria category it used to assess applicants. Overall, it said there was relevant specialist evidence but limited in detail regarding hidden disabilities. It noted the evidence and reported information demonstrated mild/moderate difficulties with travel. It said she did not meet the criteria for provision of a blue badge. It said there was no submitted evidence that Miss X had very considerable psychological distress when walking or taking a journey, or that she was at risk of serious harm to herself or others in the context of travel.
18. Miss X complained to us. She said she provided evidence of her condition, but the Council did not give enough consideration to the issues accepted with ADHD and how it affected her. She said it referred to her PIP award, but this was from before she started driving.

Application 2

19. In early 2025, Miss X made another application.
20. She submitted an additional NHS ADHD assessment letter from an annual review the month before. This stated Miss X managed well with her medication which significantly helped her. The specialist noted Miss X wanted a blue badge due to her ADHD. She experienced significant anxiety, panic, and stress with anything related to driving. It said Miss X described struggles with planning or following journeys.
21. An expert assessor completed a report and declined the application. It said a blue badge is not issued on the basis of a particular diagnosis or condition on its own, but from evidence on its severity. It considered the letter and acknowledged Miss X would have cognitive deficits associated with ADHD. It said there was insufficient evidence of severely challenging behaviour or severe psychological distress in the context of travel, but noted she may need additional support for some journeys.
22. Miss X appealed. She did not believe she had been assessed correctly as it said it had insufficient evidence of her difficulties. She said this was shown in the specialist nurse letter about her ADHD.
23. The Council responded saying the letter mentioned the positive effect of her medication and the parts about driving appeared to be based on self-reported information. It said it did not have sufficient or factual evidence to confirm her difficulties. Miss X disputed this. She said the nurse would not have included it if it was not part of her ADHD and the medication only helped with some issues, not all.
24. An expert assessor completed an appeal report and declined her application, on similar grounds to the previous reports.

Analysis

25. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide if someone is eligible for a blue badge or assess the strength of evidence provided. Instead, we look at whether the Council followed the guidance and considered relevant information when reaching its decision. If we decide there was no fault in how the Council made its decision, we cannot criticise the merits of it or say it should have reached a different outcome.
26. In this case, I consider there is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decisions on both of Miss X’s applications and appeals. The expert assessor reports referred to the pieces of supporting information provided by Miss X each time. It explained how it scored them against each relevant qualifying criteria for a blue badge in relation to hidden disabilities. A score of 12 or more is needed to be eligible under “moderate to severe difficulties”. In each application and appeal, she scored 10 or less.
27. As per guidance, it is a high threshold. I appreciate Miss X thinks the Council has not listened to her or correctly considered what she said. However, the Council said what weight it placed on the evidence (e.g. her PIP award and aspects of the specialist nurse letter) when balancing the information and analysing the severity of whether it was enough to show considerable difficulties. This is up to the decision maker. The Council agreed she had an ADHD diagnosis but decided the evidence did not show difficulties are to the extent she qualities for a blue badge.
28. While Miss X disagrees with the decisions, I am satisfied the Council considered relevant information and guidance when it declined the applications. It was of the view Miss X did not meet the threshold criteria, it gave reasons why, and these are decisions it is entitled to make. As I have not identified fault, I cannot criticise the professional judgements reached in this case.

Back to top

Decision

29. I have completed my investigation, and I do not find fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman