Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council unfairly refused her application for a disabled parking badge. We have found that the Council was not at fault, because its approach to Mrs X’s application was neither unreasonable nor obviously at odds with the government’s best practice guidance. This means we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision to refuse the application.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council refused to renew her disabled parking badge (routinely referred to as a ‘blue badge’), even though she has a lifelong condition and has had a badge since being diagnosed in 2005.
2. Mrs X says she gave the Council the evidence it asked for after its initial refusal, but it still refused, saying she did not see a doctor often enough. She says she does not need to see a consultant because she has a long-term physiotherapy and medication regime.
3. Mrs X says this matter has caused her distress, which, in turn, has increased the pain caused by her condition.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. If we are satisfied with a council’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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue Badge scheme local authority guidance

7. The government provides ‘best practice’ guidance to councils on how to process applications for blue badges.
8. Under the guidance, there are several categories of applicants who quality for a badge. The category under which Mrs X hoped to qualify is described as:

… a person who has been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring and substantial disability which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk, experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking …

9. If, having received an application, it is not obvious to a council whether the applicant falls under this category, it should refer them to an expert assessor. This process may involve a mobility assessment, particularly for those applicants with physical disabilities.
10. Referral to an expert assessor is unnecessary when a council decides it is obvious that an applicant is clearly eligible or ineligible and further assessment would serve no purpose.

What happened

11. In September 2024, Mrs X applied to renew her blue badge. She said she:
• had ‘reflex sympathetic dystrophy’ and ‘chronic regional pain syndrome’, which were permanent conditions;
• was in constant pain in her legs and back;
• could only walk less than 20 metres without being in pain or short of breath; and
• took medication for her pain, which had variable effectiveness.
12. The Council rejected Mrs X’s application, saying she had not provided enough evidence. It provided her with a list of acceptable evidence, and information it required about her condition, should she choose to appeal.
13. Mrs X appealed. She provided a summary sheet from her GP, which confirmed her diagnoses. She also said that, as her condition had been diagnosed almost 20 years previously, she had been discharged by her consultant as there was nothing more they could do about her lifelong condition.
14. The Council rejected Mrs X’s appeal, again deciding that she had not provided enough evidence.
15. The Council tells us that it expects people to provide relevant evidence to support their application. This is because it processes 250+ applications a week and it cannot refer everyone for an expert assessment. It adds:

The Blue Badge assessment team have sufficient and robust training which enables them to make informed decisions when dealing with appeals, in line with Government guidance.

16. The Council says it asked Mrs X for extra evidence – and was “confident that there were further documents [she] could have provided at this stage without the need to refer to the expert assessor” – but she did not do so. It says she only provided documents which were of little use in deciding her eligibility (and a written description of her difficulties, unsupported by medical evidence).

My findings

17. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether someone should be issued a blue badge. Instead, we decide whether a council has followed the right procedure.
18. The government guidance I have referred to above is non-statutory. But it outlines what the government considers best practice. We expect councils to follow the guidance unless they provide a good reason why they did not do so.
19. The Council’s reason for rejecting Mrs X’s application was because of a lack of evidence – which it expects applicants to provide. This is because, it says, it cannot refer every applicant for an expert assessment simply because they do not provide relevant evidence. This is not an unreasonable approach for the Council to take.
20. It is plausible that the Council can take this approach and still meet the terms of the guidance. However, even if the Council’s approach did deviate from the guidance on this point, I would not have grounds to criticise it. This is because the guidance is non-statutory, and the Council has fully explained its approach, which does not appear unreasonable.
21. As the Council was not at fault for the procedure it followed in Mrs X’s case, I cannot question the merits of its decision to refuse her blue badge application.
22. If Mrs X feels her circumstances have changed, and she is now in a position to provide evidence of her eligibility for a blue badge, she can reapply.

Back to top

Decision

23. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman