Summary: The Council failed to properly consider relevant medical information when assessing Mr X’s application for a blue badge. Consequently, Mr X suffered unnecessary worry, stress and inconvenience.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused his renewal application for a blue badge.

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 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information provided by Mr X together with the Council’s response to the complaint and information provided by the Council to this office. I have also taken account of relevant legislation. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document. All comments made have been considered.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

The Blue Badge scheme

5. The Blue Badge scheme is to help disabled people with severe mobility problems access goods and services by allowing them to park near their destination. The scheme provides parking concessions for blue badge holders. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing whether people are eligible for a badge
6. There are two types of eligibility criteria. First, where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge. This includes those receiving certain welfare benefits, some armed forces veterans and those registered blind.
7. The second category is for those people eligible subject to further assessment. They must fulfil one of two criteria to qualify for a badge. Either they:

• 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 a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.

8. Government guidance says the words ‘very considerable difficulty’ suggest “the purpose of issuing a Badge should be to enable the applicant to undertake journeys that would not otherwise be possible, or which are only possible with very considerable difficulty”.

Background

9. Mr X has chronic bowel disease which impacts on his day-to-day life. He has had a blue badge for many years. In 2021, the Council refused Mr X’s application to renew his badge. Mr X made a complaint to this office. We upheld the complaint and Mr X was subsequently awarded a blue badge.
10. In November 2024, Mr X applied to the Council to renew his blue badge citing his reasons as hidden disability and walking. He provided supporting evidence confirming his diagnosed conditions.
11. The Council refused the application and wrote to Mr X in December 2024 to explain he had not met the criteria for a blue badge under hidden disability or mobility.
12. Mr X complained to the Council in December 2024. He reminded it of his previous complaint to this office in 2021. Following this, the Council sought information from a specialist involved with Mr X’s care.
13. The specialist responded to the Council in March 2025. The letter confirms Mr X’s condition and says the condition remained as described in his (specialist) previous supporting letter provided to the Council in 2021. The Council says the specialist suggested the Council obtain advice from another professional about Mr X’s ability to walk, and that he (specialist), had not ticked relevant boxes to say he supported the application.
14. The Council declined the application and wrote to Mr X in March 2025 to explain why. It said the information provided by the specialist did not state that Mr X met the criteria set out by the Department of Transport.
15. Mr X submitted a complaint to this office.
16. Following an enquiry from this office the Council contacted Mr X to confirm the criteria under which he had applied for a badge. Mr X said he had not applied based on his walking ability, but of his need to be near to a toilet. The Council subsequently sent a further enquiry to Mr X’s specialist asking if he could support Mr X’s application under the hidden disability criteria.

Analysis

17. It is not my role to decide whether Mr X is eligible for a blue badge or give a view about the degree to which he meets the relevant criteria. My role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process in coming to a decision.
18. In this case the Council has not done so.
19. The assessor failed to properly consider information provided by a specialist involved with Mr X’s care. Whilst brief, the letter from the specialist confirms Mr X’s condition and says the details remain as they were described in the letter provided to the Council in 2021. The Council failed to properly consider this information. It should have been clear to the Council that Mr X’s condition remains as it was in 2021.
20. It appears the Council placed too much emphasis on the category under which Mr X made his application when it was clear Mr X was renewing his application on the same basis he had done previously. The Council should have discussed the submission category with Mr X to confirm his position sooner than it did. This is the second occasion Mr X has had cause to complain to this office about the administration of his blue badge application. The circumstances of the previous complaint almost mirror that of this complaint.
21. The Council cannot expect citizens, who may be vulnerable to have a full understanding of the submission categories of blue badges. Refusing applications because a submission category is incorrect, when it is clear an applicant meets the criteria of another category, causes unnecessary burden to the applicant.
22. The failure to properly consider the application caused Mr X unnecessary worry, stress and inconvenience.
23. Following the draft decision, the Council reviewed Mr X's case and has agreed to issue a blue badge. It confirms there has been learning from the complaint and that this will inform future practice.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. The Council should, within four weeks of the final decision:

• apologise to Mr X for the failure set out above and pay him £250 to acknowledge the worry, stress and inconvenience caused as a result;
• provide this office with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

25. The Council failed to properly consider Mrs X’s application for a blue badge because it failed to properly consider medical information. Consequently, Mr X suffered unnecessary worry, stress and inconvenience.
26. The above recommendations are a suitable way to settle the complaint.
27. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman