Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess his application for a Blue Badge. We find no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed his application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not accurately assess his application for a Blue Badge.
2. He says this has had a significant impact on his quality of life as he experiences extreme difficulty walking.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr 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

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, 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.
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 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.
10. 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.
11. 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

What happened

12. In February 2025, Mr X applied for a Blue Badge. The Council completed a face-to-face mobility assessment, which found he did not meet the eligibility threshold. The Council wrote a letter to Mr X to explain its decision. The letter included details of how to appeal.
13. In March, Mr X appealed the decision and supplied a supporting letter from his GP.
14. In April, the Council completed a telephone reassessment as part of the appeal. His score increased by four points, but he still did not meet the threshold for approval. The Council notified him of this decision in a letter and was appropriately referred to us if he was dissatisfied with the outcome.
15. Mr X then bought his complaint to us.

My findings

16. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the Council followed a proper and fair process when assessing Mr X’s application. We cannot decide whether Mr X should receive a Blue Badge; that decision rests with the Council.
17. Mr X did not meet the automatic eligibility criteria, so the Council assessed him under the discretionary criteria, which required an evaluation of his walking ability and mobility. The Council carried out both a face-to-face assessment and, following appeal, a telephone reassessment. The evidence shows these were completed in line with DfT guidance and within appropriate timeframes. The Council explained its reasons for refusal, informed Mr X of his appeal rights, and considered further medical evidence as part of the appeal. I have seen no evidence of procedural fault or unfairness in how the Council reached its decision. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make. Mr X disagrees with the outcome, but disagreement with a properly made decision does not itself indicate fault.
18. Mr X says his condition has since worsened and that he has received a new diagnosis. It remains open to him to make a new Blue Badge application supported by updated medical evidence.

Back to top

Decision

19. I have completed my investigation finding no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman