Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to renew her Blue Badge, despite there being no change in her circumstances. We found the Council to be at fault because it was unable to demonstrate it carried out a proper review of Ms X’s mobility or hidden disability. This left Ms X uncertain as to whether her application was properly considered. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise and reconsider her application. It will also take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to renew her Blue Badge, despite there being no change in her circumstances. She says the Council did not properly consider the information she provided or review her mobility.
2. She says has negatively impacted on her ability to access the community and work.

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 Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. 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 law, guidance and policy

Blue Badges

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 (the Guidance) has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
9. The 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:
1. where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;
2. 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.

12. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.
13. The Guidance strongly recommends that every applicant who is refused a badge should be given a detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal. It is insufficient to simply state the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria.

What happened

14. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “Analysis” section of this decision statement.
15. Ms X has several health diagnoses, including multiple sclerosis (MS), anxiety and depression. She had been a Blue Badge recipient for several years. In January 2025, she applied to have her badge renewed. She attended an in-person independent mobility assessment. Her application was refused.
16. Ms X requested a review of this decision. She explained the Council failed to consider the fluctuating nature of her mobility and her non-visible disability. She provided two examples of the psychological distress she experienced due the challenges of getting to work and socialising due to anxiety about parking.
17. In support of her appeal, Ms X submitted a report from her GP. This stated Ms X “regularly experienced difficulties whilst walking between a vehicle and their destination”. The GP report also stated, “MS can cause Ms X significant psychological distress if she is fatigued or experiencing hip or back pain outside of the home”.
18. Her appeal was unsuccessful. The Council’s decision letter to Ms X:

• repeated the conclusion of the independent mobility assessor that Ms X did not satisfy the mobility criteria. This was based on observations made during the assessment and information provided by Ms X; and
• explained there was no evidence that Ms X had very considerable psychological distress when walking/taking a journey.

19. Disappointed by this outcome, Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the Council:

• failed to take account of the fluctuating nature of her MS;
• failed to review its mobility decision; and
• did not properly take account the psychological distress caused by her severe fatigue, as evidenced by her GP.

20. In response to our enquiries, the Council explained;

• a full hidden-disability assessment was carried out as part of the review process;
• the independent mobility assessment was reviewed by a different member of staff as part of the appeal process; and
• the review documentation may have given the impression that Ms X’s mobility was not considered. It agreed to review how this messaging could be improved in future.

Analysis

21. The Ombudsman’s role is not to decide whether Ms X is eligible for a Blue Badge or give a view about the degree to which she meets the relevant criteria. Our role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process in coming to a decision.
22. I have found no fault with the way the Council made its initial decision. It considered Ms X’s mobility and her hidden disability using appropriate assessment tools, including a face-to face-assessment. I appreciate Ms X strongly disagrees with certain conclusions made by the assessor, but for the reason explained above, the Ombudsman is unable to interfere with this type of professional judgement.
23. Ms X then had the opportunity to appeal this decision and submit any additional information to support her application. Again, this was the correct approach. However, I have found fault with what happened afterwards.
24. Her review request covered two main areas. In summary, she said:

• the in-person mobility assessment failed to take account of the fluctuating nature of her conditions and the observations made by the assessor were not accurate; and
• the Council failed to properly recognise the psychological distress she experienced when taking a journey without the benefit of a Blue Badge. This was due to both extreme fatigue and anxiety. She said evidence of this was disregarded.

25. In reaching my decision that there was fault, I have considered the form completed by the assessor at the review stage, and the decision letter sent to Ms X. The Council has confirmed to the Ombudsman there are no other written records about its decision making.
26. These records show the review process failed to properly consider Ms X’s mobility which was one her grounds for making her review request. The form completed by the reviewer was titled, “Assessment tool for hidden disabilities”. Whilst there is a section of the form entitled “Mobility screening”, the assessor simply repeated what Ms X described in her appeal request letter. It failed to provide any analysis of this information, or an explain why the Council’s decision on mobility remained the same. On this point, the decision letter just repeated the relevant parts of the guidance and Ms X’s diagnoses. It did not provide any further commentary on this issue.
27. Its conclusion, the letter said that Ms X, “did not meet the hidden disability criteria for the provision of a blue badge”. As I have set out about, the Guidance expects Council’s to say more than this. Both the failure to meaningfully review Ms X’s mobility, and its lack of explanation, amount to fault.
28. I also have concerns about the assessment of Ms X’s hidden disability, specifically, that the Council was unable to provide evidence that the review properly considered the report by Ms X’s GP (set out at paragraph 17, above). The assessor concluded that Ms X demonstrated “mild difficulties with travel in the domain of behavioural difficulties”. The documentation provided to the Ombudsman does not explain why the assessor reached this conclusion. In my view this was necessary because it contradicted medical evidence provided by Ms X (that referred to severe psychological distress).
29. I accept the Council may have considered the GP report and formed a different view about the severity of the impact experienced by Ms X. But the Council has been unable to not demonstrate it did so from the information I have been provided with. This is fault by the Council.
30. As I have already explained the Ombudsman expects councils to provide enough information for the applicant to understand the rationale for refusal. This was particularly important in this case because Ms X had been a Blue Badge recipient for several years. It is my view she has a reasonable expectation for the Council to explain why she was no longer eligible when her needs had not changed. Ms X told the Council that her previous successful management of travel-related distress was directly related to her having had the benefit of a Blue Badge for several years. This was not properly acknowledged doing the review process.
31. I am satisfied this has left Ms X with uncertainty about whether her review was properly considered. This is injustice that requires a remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise in writing to Ms X.
2. Reconsider Ms X’s application, including both her mobility difficulties and hidden disability. It should provide Ms X with a detailed explanation for its decision. In response to a draft version of this decision, the Council advised it recently received a new application from Ms X that has been the subject of a fresh independence assessment. The Council agreed to determine this application, and up-to-date information provided by Ms X, taking into account the concerns raised by the Ombudsman.
3. Remind relevant staff that they should take all evidence into account and be able to show they have done so on the file.
4. Remind relevant staff of the need to provide a decision letter that is detailed enough to ensure the applicant understands the Council’s rationale for its decision.

33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice and improve its service. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman