Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled Mrs X’s application for a disabled parking badge. It considered the information available, processed the application and appeal in accordance with the government’s best practice guidance and made a decision which, in the circumstances, was not obviously unreasonable. As there was no procedural fault in how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s application and appeal, we cannot question its decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about three issues:

· The Council declined her application for a disabled parking badge,

· Incorrect information appeared in the assessor’s reports,

· Council staff failed to make reasonable adjustments to allow a remote assessment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant guidance.
5. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The blue badge guidance

6. 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.
7. 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.

8. If it is not obvious to a council that an applicant falls into one of these categories, it should refer them to an expert assessor, such as an occupational therapist (who would specialise in assessing a wide range of conditions, including physical, learning or mental health difficulties).
9. In such cases, where it is not self-evident by the information provided to a local authority that an applicant will/will not meet the ‘subject to further assessment’ eligibility criteria, then the individual should be expected to present for an in-person mobility assessment, carried out by an ‘expert assessor’, unless they also experience any non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities which could make answering questions or completing an in-person mobility assessment overwhelmingly stressful or intimidating.
10. Aside from cases where an applicant is unable to walk; i.e. that they cannot walk during the course of a journey, 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’).
11. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

What happened

12. In March 2025, Mrs X applied to renew her disabled parking badge. The Council assessed her under the category "subject to further assessment."
13. Mrs X later complained that the Council asked her to attend a face-to-face assessment, even though she had requested an alternative format. The Council apologised, explaining it had missed her request due to a high volume of email enquiries.
14. After the assessment, the Council refused her application. The assessor noted that Mrs X walked at a notably slower pace and reported increased pain with exertion, although she did not experience breathlessness. The assessor considered this information but concluded that she did not meet the criteria for a disabled parking badge.
15. Mrs X appealed the decision. At her request, the appeal assessment took place by telephone. She told the assessor she could walk about 120 metres at a slow pace and experienced pain and fatigue when walking. The assessor took this into account when scoring the application.
16. In April 2025, the Council replied to the appeal and upheld its original decision, saying that Mrs X still did not meet the criteria for a disabled parking badge.
17. In both the original application and subsequent appeal, the Council concluded that while Mrs X experienced some mobility difficulties, the evidence did not show that these were severe enough to meet the eligibility threshold for a disabled parking badge. In both assessments, the Council determined that Mrs X’s walking ability was not sufficiently limited under the national guidance, and that walking did not cause significant pain, breathlessness, or risk to the level required to qualify.

My findings

18. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether someone should be eligible for a blue badge. Instead, we must decide whether there was any procedural fault in how a council made a blue badge decision.
19. The Council:

• Referred Mrs X’s application to a suitable expert assessor.

• Gave Mrs X the opportunity to explain how her medical condition impacted on her mobility.

• Clearly considered the medical evidence provided by health care professionals including letters from the GP, rheumatologist, hepatologist, gynaecologist and gastroenterologist.

20. As a result, I am satisfied that the Council followed the government’s best practice guidance and was responsible for no procedural fault.
21. In the absence of any such fault, and as the Council’s decision was not, in the circumstances, obviously unreasonable, I have no power to question that decision.
22. The Council apologised for not acting on Mrs X’s request for an alternative assessment. However, government guidance states that applicants should expect to attend an in-person assessment, so I find no fault in the Council’s approach.

Back to top

Decision

23. The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Mrs X’s blue badge application and appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman