Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered the complainant’s application to renew his Blue Badge. It failed to send him a copy of its initial decision letter, for which it has agreed to apologise, and then completed an assessment, but did not take proper account of his condition and the reason for his application. The means the outcome of the assessment is unsafe, and for this reason the Council has now agreed to carry out a reassessment. There is also evidence council officers do not properly understand an aspect of the Blue Badge eligibility criteria, and the Council will circulate guidance to them about this.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr M.
2. Mr M complains the Council refused his application to renew his Blue Badge, which he says he needs to help manage the impact of a long-term health condition. Mr M says the absence of a badge is forcing him to park his car unlawfully, meaning he risks being fined.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr M and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr M has a health condition which means he frequently and urgently needs to use the toilet. He says, for approximately 20 years, the Council had issued him a Blue Badge for this reason. This was to permit Mr M to stop and park his car near to places he could use the toilet, where this would otherwise be unlawful.
6. On 6 June 2025 Mr M applied to the Council to renew his badge, but the Council made an initial decision to refuse the application. It wrote a letter explaining its decision on 18 June, but because of an error did not send this to Mr M until 9 July, after he had chased it up.
7. In its letter, the Council said it had refused the application because a Blue Badge would not “benefit [Mr M] to [access a toilet at short notice]”, and because “continence issues are not a factor” in the Blue Badge guidance issued by the Government.
8. Mr M submitted an appeal against this decision the following day. He explained how the condition affected him, the benefit he derived from having a Blue Badge, and the impact of not having a badge. The Council considered Mr M’s appeal and invited him to attend a face-to-face mobility assessment on 1 August. Mr M explained he could not attend on this date, and so, with his agreement, the Council arranged an assessment by phone instead.
9. After completing the assessment, the Council maintained its initial decision to refuse Mr M’s application. It wrote to him on 14 August to explain this. In the letter, it noted the assessor had found “no evidence [Mr M] can’t walk [over 80 metres] … unless he is in pain and needing the toilet at that specific time”. The Council also explained it had seen no evidence Mr M had “very considerable psychological distress when walking or taking a journey”, or that he was at “risk of serious harm” to himself or others in this context.
10. The Council explained Mr M could reapply for a Blue Badge after six months, or approach the Ombudsman. He submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman on 26 August.

Back to top

Legislative background

11. 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 somebody caring for them, to park near their destination, in places or at times which would normally be unlawful, or without charge where they might otherwise need to pay. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing applicants’ eligibility for the badge.
12. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Applicants who meet specified criteria, such as being in receipt of certain disability-related benefits, will be eligible for a badge automatically, without further assessment. Other applicants may be eligible subject to further assessment, if they meet one or more of the following criteria:

• they drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and are unable to operate, or have considerable difficulty operating, all or some types of parking meter; or
• they 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
• they are at risk of serious harm when walking, or pose a serious risk of harm to any other person.

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

Back to top

Analysis

17. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way a council has made its decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or unduly delayed making a decision. We call this ‘administrative fault’ and, where we find it, we can consider the impact of the fault and ask the council in question to address this.
18. But we do not make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf, or provide a right of appeal against its decisions. If we find a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if the complainant feels it has made the wrong decision. We do not uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with something a council has done.
19. That means it is not for me to determine, for example, that Mr M’s condition should qualify him for a Blue Badge. This remains a decision for the Council to make.
20. However, I have some points of concern about the Council’s handling of Mr M’s application.
21. First, although the Council made its initial decision to refuse Mr M's application on 18 June, it did not send him a copy of the letter until 9 July. Mr M says the Council has explained this was due to an oversight by an officer.
22. We recognise that such errors will happen from time-to-time, and there is no evidence it arose because of any systemic problem with the Council’s procedures. I also accept the delay had no wider impact on Mr M’s application, as he was still able to appeal the decision. However, even putting aside any consideration about the outcome, it is evident this delay caused Mr M some frustration, and he should not have needed to chase the Council about it. This is an injustice, and the Council should write a formal letter of apology to Mr M to reflect it.
23. Second, and more importantly, I am forced to question whether the Council’s assessment actually addressed the critical issue in Mr M’s application.
24. As is typical for Blue Badge assessments, the Council’s assessment form includes a scoring matrix. To complete the form, the assessor assigns a score to several different aspects of the applicant’s mobility – such as the distance and speed they can walk, and the degree of pain or discomfort they experience in doing so – and then adds these together at the end. The Council then awards a Blue Badge if the total score reaches a set threshold. In Mr M’s case, he scored a total of 11 points, against 16 required for a badge.
25. There is nothing to suggest the assessor failed to complete the form properly, or miscalculated Mr M’s score. In the narrow sense, therefore, there is no evidence of fault here.
26. However, in the summary section of the form, the assessor went on to write (emphasis my own):

“[There] is no doubt [Mr M’s] mobility is severely restricted however, needing to use the toilet on a constant basis is not part of the DFT [Department for Transport] criteria in regards to the mobility assessment. He can walk over 80m and I found no evidence he can’t. Obviously unless he is in pain and needing the toilet at that specific time. So, I am unable to support the application on this basis.”

27. In making this comment, the assessor appears to suggest that the outcome of the assessment does not properly reflect Mr M’s circumstances – specifically, that his condition is sporadic and episodic in nature, and therefore the situation might be different when he is in the midst of an episode. Given this is precisely the reason Mr M applied for a Blue Badge, therefore, it is difficult to see how the assessment could have properly served its purpose.
28. The assessor then wrote:

“This a very complicated case because his mobility is affected. He is in need of parking closer to amenities. It is dangerous for him and others when walking and suddenly needing to pull over or to try and find a toilet when walking. I wonder if he is more suited to being assessed under Hidden Disabilities?”

29. This comment is confusing for two reasons. First, it implies the Council treats the issue of ‘hidden disabilities’ as a separate consideration, when it should simply form part of the same assessment. Second, and more importantly, the assessor’s comments strongly indicate they considered Mr M met the criteria for a Blue Badge, under the ‘hidden disabilities’ aspect of the criteria, but did not recommend the Council issue one.
30. Again, it is not for me to make my own judgement about Mr M’s eligibility for a Blue Badge. But it is difficult to escape the conclusion the assessor did not recommend Mr M be issued a badge, not because they felt he did not qualify, but because of the outcome of the scoring matrix.
31. The Council is entitled to rely on the matrix as part of its assessment process. However, the matrix should only ever be a tool for the assessor to use. It should not be allowed to dictate the outcome of an assessment, where the assessor’s observations appear to suggest otherwise, as in this case.
32. I therefore consider the assessment raises enough doubt about its effectiveness to make the outcome unsafe. This is also fault, and creates the injustice that Mr M may have wrongly been denied a badge.
33. To remedy this, the Council should now undertake a new mobility assessment. In doing so, the Council should explicitly consider how Mr M’s mobility is affected during an episode of his condition, and whether he should qualify under the ‘hidden disabilities' criteria.
34. My third, and final, concern is that the Council has, at several points, commented that ‘continence issues’ do not form part of the Government guidance, the implication being it cannot issue a Blue Badge for this reason.
35. It is true the Blue Badge guidance does not mention continence issues as a potential reason to issue a badge. But the guidance actually does not list any specific condition under the ‘non-automatic’ criteria (and only one, that the applicant is registered blind, under the ‘automatic criteria’). This is because eligibility for a badge is based on the way a condition affects the applicant’s mobility, not simply that they have a specific condition. If a council considers an applicant’s mobility is sufficiently compromised because of continence issues, then it can issue a badge for this reason.
36. The Council’s repeated comments about this suggest a misunderstanding of this principle, and again I consider this to be fault. In this instance, I am not persuaded the fault ultimately had any effect on Mr M’s application – either way, the Council carried out a full (albeit flawed) assessment, and made a decision on this basis – and therefore there is no injustice to him.
37. However, I consider this point significant enough that the Council should circulate guidance about it, to ensure relevant staff have a proper understanding of the eligibility criteria. The Council may wish to consider sharing a copy of this decision as part of this.

Back to top

Action

38. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• write a formal letter of apology to Mr M, acknowledging the frustration he experienced because of its failure to promptly send him its initial decision letter. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended;
• contact Mr M to organise a new assessment of his mobility. The assessment should then give proper consideration to how Mr M’s mobility is affected by his condition, and whether this makes him eligible for a Blue Badge under any of the criteria set out in the Government guidance; and
• circulate a reminder to relevant staff, to ensure they understand that Blue Badge eligibility is dependent on the way an applicant’s mobility is affected by their condition, and not whether they have or do not have a specific condition.

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

Back to top

Decision

40. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman