Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his application for a blue badge. He said it caused delays and failed to properly consider his non-visible disabilities in the process. We found the Council at fault for causing significant delays in the assessment process and for some unclear communication. It was not at fault for how it reached its view on Mr X’s eligibility at the time. The Council should apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice its delay and unclear communication caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained about the Council’s handling of his blue badge application. He said it:
• caused unnecessary delay in his blue badge assessment process; and
• wrongly found it could not award a blue badge under non-visible disabilities despite his significant evidence and suggested he did not have a diagnosis of autism.
2. Mr X said, as a result, he has experienced distress. He says the lack of a blue badge is impacting his quality of life, limiting his independence and requires him to seeks support from others for assistance with transport.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. Mr X’s complaint relates to the Council’s delay in its blue badge assessment process and its decision not to find him eligible under non-visible disabilities up to November 2024.
7. I have therefore:
• investigated the Council’s delayed process and how it reached its view on Mr X’s eligibility for a blue badge under non-visible disabilities.
• not investigated Mr X’s concerns about matters which occurred after November 2024, which includes his mobility assessment in March 2025. This is because this was not part of his original complaint to the Council, and it has therefore not had the opportunity to respond to these through its complaints process.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr 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

The Blue Badge Scheme

10. 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, or their carer, to park near their destination. The scheme gives parking concessions to Blue Badge holders. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing applicants’ eligibility for the badge.
11. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
12. The DfT guidance sets out what assessors may wish to consider when assessing a person’s mobility. The guidance is non-statutory. This means councils do not have to follow it, but most councils do. We expect councils to explain if they decide not to follow such guidance.
13. 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.
14. 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 of two criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:
1. 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
2. have a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
15. Applicants who can walk more than 80 metres and do not display very considerable difficulty walking for any other reason, including very considerable psychological distress, or serious risk to themselves or others, would not be eligible. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

What happened

16. Mr X drives a car to access work and to get around. He has health conditions which impact his physical mobility and has been diagnosed with conditions, including autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
17. In May 2024 Mr X applied to the Council for a blue badge under the physical mobility criteria.
18. The Council completed a desktop exercise, which confirmed he was not automatically eligible and therefore required an in-person assessment.
19. Mr X provided additional information and evidence to the Council about his health conditions in Summer and Autumn 2024. This included information from his GP, the NHS, support letters, and his autism diagnosis with an assessment.
20. The Council considered the information Mr X provided, but did not find this was evidence he would qualify for a blue badge. It again said he would need an in-person assessment for which it had a waiting list due to a backlog.
21. In September 2024 Mr X was unhappy about the length of time it had taken to consider his application. He told the Council and asked it for information about its complaints process. He also said he had initially applied under the mobility criteria but had since provided information about his non-visible disabilities and supportive evidence.
22. The Council explained it had a high volume of blue badge applications, but his application and evidence had been forwarded to the assessor who would be in contact. It could not give him a timescale for the assessment.

Mr X’s complaint

23. In late September 2024 Mr X complained to the Council. He said he had waited nearly five months for an assessment and its blue badge decision.
24. In response the Council explained, during its investigation of his complaint, it had completed a desk-based assessment of his information and medical records, including his ASD diagnosis. However, it was not satisfied he was eligible under the non-visible criteria. It said an in-person assessment under the mobility criteria was needed which may take a further six months. It acknowledged the delay in its blue badge assessment process was not acceptable and apologised.
25. In a separate communication it also said his non-visible disabilities will be reviewed when the mobility assessment had taken place.
26. Mr X remained dissatisfied and asked the Council to escalate his complaint. He felt his non-visible disabilities had not been properly considered.
27. In response the Council did not change its view. It explained it had reviewed all his information and supporting evidence regarding non-visible disabilities against the criteria for a blue badge to be granted. It said it would contact Mr X for his mobility assessment.
28. Mr X asked the Council if this was the Council’s final decision for his blue badge application.
29. The Council confirmed it was not, and it was arranging his mobility assessment. However, it had completed the complaints process regarding the delays in the process.
30. In November 2024 Mr X and the Council continued to correspond. The Council confirmed he had initially applied under mobility criteria but had since provided information about non-visible disabilities. It said he could approach the Ombudsman regarding this decision, but his application remains open and it would arrange his mobility assessment.
31. Mr X asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint. He was unhappy about the delay in the blue badge assessment process and how the Council had considered his non-visible disabilities against the criteria. He also said it had suggested he did not have a diagnosis of ASD.
32. In response to our enquiries the Council confirmed:
• no final decision was issued on Mr X’s blue badge application as he was yet to be assessed in a mobility assessment. The process was therefore not completed;
• Mr X has continued to dispute its non-visible criteria decision, it will reconsider this when his mobility assessment can be completed; and
• it had managed the backlog in its blue badge assessment process through a review and a change in process. This has reduced the backlog significantly and it expects this to continue.
33. Mr X has since said he had his mobility assessment in March 2025. He is unhappy with how the assessment was completed and withdrew his blue badge application during the assessment.

Analysis and findings

Delays in the blue badge process

34. The Council accepted it had delays in processing and deciding blue badge applications. It acknowledged it had caused delay in the process for Mr X and apologised.
35. The Council was therefore at fault as it had failed to complete Mr X’s blue badge application process between May 2024 to November 2024.
36. I have considered whether the Council’s apology to Mr X is enough to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty its delays caused him. In reaching my view I was mindful:
• the Council took steps to consider his application through its initial desktop exercise in May 2024, and subsequently for non-visible disabilities in Autumn 2024;
• the Council shared its view he was not eligible for a blue badge each time it considered his application and supporting evidence; and
• Mr X has not been found to be entitled to a blue badge under either the non-visible or mobility criteria since, and his application was withdrawn in March 2025. I cannot therefore say Mr X was without a blue badge as a result of the Council’s delayed process.
37. However, I am not satisfied the Council’s apology was enough to remedy the injustice its delays caused Mr X. This is because it took nearly 10 months for it to complete the necessary in-person assessment following his application. I found this caused Mr X some unnecessary distress and uncertainty.

Handling of Mr X blue badge decision under the non-visible criteria

38. The Council was required to reach a decision on Mr X’s blue badge application and share this with Mr X. This could be under the mobility criteria or the non-visible disability criteria, or both. However, appeal rights are first available when the process is completed.
39. Based on the information available, it is clear the Council considered the information, medical evidence, and supportive letters Mr X provided regarding his non-visible disabilities after his initial blue badge application. Each time it reached its view he was not eligible under the non-visible disability criteria.
40. I understand Mr X believes the Council did not accept he had an ASD diagnosis, and this caused him some frustration. However, the evidence and communication available shows it had accepted his diagnosis, but it was not satisfied the information around the ASD diagnosis and other medical evidence entitled him to a blue badge under the criteria.
41. I have not found fault in the process the Council followed to reach its view on Mr X’s non-visible disabilities against the blue badge criteria. Without fault in the decision making process, I cannot criticise the merits of the Council’s decision.
42. However, it appears to me the Council unintentionally caused some confusion for Mr X in regard to its decision, his appeal rights, and approaching the Ombudsman. This is because:
• it said he was not eligible under the non-visible criteria, but this would be reviewed when a mobility assessment had taken place;
• in other communication it suggested the mobility assessment was only to assess the mobility criteria; and
• it reached a decision on the non-visible criteria but did not provide him with his appeal rights as the full blue badge assessment process was not yet completed. This could have been explained more clearly to Mr X.
43. The Council was correct to signpost Mr X to the Ombudsman in relation to the delays in the blue badge process following its final complaint response.
44. I therefore found the Council’s communication could have been clearer to limit Mr X’s expectation and for him to understand what the in-person mobility assessment would consider.
45. As set out in paragraph 7, I have not investigated any concerns Mr X may have about the blue badge process after November 2024, except for the ongoing delay in arranging the in-person assessment.
46. While I found fault by the Council, I have not made any service improvement in relation to the Council’s delayed handling of the blue badge assessment process. This is because the Council has taken steps to address its backlog and this continues to improve.

Back to top

Action

47. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mr X, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Mr X to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused;

We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.

2. pay Mr X a symbolic payment of £150 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty he experienced as a result of the Council’s delayed process and unclear communication.
2. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2.  
3. remind relevant staff to ensure clear and consistent communication is provided to blue badge applicants regarding delays, when appeal rights can be exercised, and next steps in the assessment process.
3. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

50. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council for causing delays in the blue badge assessment process and some unclear communication. There was no fault in how it reached its views on Mr X’s entitlement to a blue badge under its non-visible disability criteria. It therefore reached a decision it was entitled to make at the time.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman