Summary: Ms X complained the Council wrongly refused her application for a Blue Badge. The Council is at fault for failing to follow its Blue Badge policy when handling an appeal of its decision. This caused Ms X an injustice as the review process was not conducted fairly. However, this injustice has been remedied as the Council has completed a fresh review of its decision. It is not therefore necessary to make any further recommendations.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not take her medical conditions into account when assessing her Blue Badge application and it wrongly refused her application. She says this has caused distress and limited her ability to leave her home. She requests that the Council reassess her application with input from an expert on hidden disabilities.

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 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)
3. 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. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended). When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services, we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Relevant legislation

8. 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.
9. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.

13. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

What happened

14. Ms X has health conditions for which she receives ongoing treatment. Ms X had previously held a Blue Badge. Ms X made a renewal application for a Blue Badge in June 2025, under both physical and the non-visible (hidden) disability criteria. She provided supporting medical evidence and explained how her health conditions impacted her ability to travel.
15. The Council contracts a third-party company, Company A, to carry out Blue Badge assessments on its behalf.
16. Ms X underwent a desk-based assessment later that month, with expert assessor A. They decided there was not enough information available to determine her eligibility and therefore asked her to provide further supporting evidence.
17. Ms X provided additional medical evidence, and a telephone assessment was subsequently carried out by expert assessor B at the beginning of July.
18. The Council rejected Ms X’s application. It explained it had considered her evidence against the criteria it used to assess applicants. It said Ms X’s walking ability fell “below the definition of very considerable difficult walking” and did not meet the threshold for “overwhelming psychological distress”. It said she did not meet the eligibility criteria for a Blue Badge. It told Ms X she could request a review but that she must submit additional medical evidence.
19. Ms X submitted a review request. She said she felt the assessment did not fully consider the impact of her hidden disabilities and explained having a Blue Badge would allow her to travel independently. She said without a Blue Badge she felt isolated and trapped.
20. The Council subsequently completed another assessment the following week. This was carried out by expert assessor B. The assessment notes state Ms X had not submitted any further medical evidence.
21. The Council upheld its original decision. The review outcome letter explained Ms X had an “adequate level of walking ability” and was able to use coping strategies to manage psychological symptoms before and during travelling. It said she therefore did not meet the criteria of “very considerable difficulty whilst walking”. It said she could reapply after a six-month period should her mobility worsen.
22. Ms X approached the Ombudsman in July.
23. In December, the Council arranged for the director of Company A to carry out a fresh review of its decision and handling of Ms X’s case. The review concluded the previous assessments were sound. It said expert assessor A had attempted to carry out the initial assessment, but due to a lack of medical evidence at the time, expert assessor B completed the assessment at a later point. Company A explained that expert assessor B had also carried out the subsequent review because it only has two assessors, but said both assessors have extensive experience conducting Blue Badge assessments.

Back to top

Analysis

24. The Council’s Blue Badge policy states if an applicant requests a review, then the decision will be reviewed by an officer who was not involved in the original decision. In response to the Ombudsman’s written enquiries, the Council said that expert assessor B had completed both the assessment and review as it only has two expert assessors.
25. However, it is unclear why expert assessor A was not tasked with carrying out the review. Though they were involved briefly at the beginning of the assessment process, they did not complete the initial assessment as Ms X had not provided sufficient medical evidence to enable them to proceed. Therefore, expert assessor A could, and should have, completed the review. That the same expert assessor carried out both the assessment and review is fault. This caused an injustice to Ms X as the review process was not completed fairly and in line with the Council’s policy.
26. To remedy injustice in such circumstances we would typically recommend the Council complete a fresh review of its decision. However, the director of Company A completed a fresh review in December.
27. The review confirmed expert assessor B considered Ms X’s physical and non-visible disabilities at both assessment and the subsequent review. It also said expert assessor B fully considered and reviewed all medical evidence Ms X submitted and confirmed she did not submit any further evidence to support her appeal. Expert assessor B’s notes support this. The review stated expert assessor B therefore declined the appeal based on existing medical evidence, and the findings of the initial assessment. I am satisfied the review has covered all the things we would expect and was based on professional judgment. The Council said it will communicate the outcome of this review to Ms X.
28. While the fault remains, and we would expect an independent review to have taken place within a more reasonable timeframe, the injustice caused to Ms X has now been remedied. It is not therefore necessary to make any recommendations.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has already remedied this injustice and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman