Summary: Mr X complained the Council has wrongly refused his application for a Blue Badge. We found no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s applications and made its decisions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has wrongly refused his application for a Blue Badge. He complains the Council has not properly considered his supporting evidence and has misapplied the Department for Transport’s guidance.

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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. 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

6. 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.
7. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible ('hidden') disabilities.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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:
1. 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
2. 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
3. be at risk of serious harm when walking, or pose a serious risk of harm to any other person.
11. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

What happened here

12. Mr X applied for a Blue Badge on 8 November 2025 based on non-visible disabilities which caused him to struggle to plan or follow a journey. The Council completed a desk based assessment on 14 November 20265 and asked Mr X to provide further information.
13. The Council then carried out a further assessment and wrote to Mr X on 19 November 2025 refusing his application. The letter noted that as Mr X did not meet the automatic eligibility criteria he was assessed subject to the further assessment criteria. The Council determined Mr X’s condition does not appear to result in him experiencing very considerable psychological distress, whilst walking during the course of a journey, to the extent he is eligible for a Blue Badge.
14. The Council told Mr X he could request a review of the decision if he did not agree. Mr X requested a review the same day. He asserted the Council had not understood the full extent of the psychological distress he experienced, specifically when walking. Mr X said his condition was long term, enduring and unpredictable, and without the ability to park close to his destination he was unable to access places safely.
15. Mr X provided additional evidence to demonstrate the severity of his condition and how it directly met the eligibility criteria based on very considerable psychological distress.
16. The Council reviewed Mr X’s application and confirmed on 4 December 2025 it would not issue a Blue Badge. It confirmed an independent expert assessor had reviewed all of the evidence Mr X had provided, including his personal statement. The Council noted Mr X’s evidence showed he experienced anxiety when using public transport and around parking which led him to avoid travelling outside the home.
17. It considered Mr X’s GP’s letter but noted there was no evidence of specialist psychiatric input. The Council considered the information provided was insufficient to demonstrate Mr X experienced overwhelming psychological distress as defined by the DfT guidance.
18. On 7 December 2025 Mr X made a further application for a Blue Badge. Mr X acknowledged he could generally reapply six months after his last application but asked for permission to apply sooner as he now had stronger medical evidence.
19. This new application was based on a combination of hidden disabilities and difficulty walking. In this application Mr X said he
• was a risk to himself or others near vehicles, in traffic or car parks;
• struggled to plan or follow a journey;
• had intense and overwhelming responses to situations causing temporary loss of behavioural control; and
• could become extremely anxious or fearful of public/ open spaces.
20. Mr X said he was accompanied on all journeys and was guided between the vehicle and destination, and planed routes in advance. But these measures were only partially effective and he still experienced severe anxiety, disorientation and loss of awareness. He says this makes walking unsafe and very distressing.
21. The Council again completed a desk top assessment and asked Mr X to provide additional information, such as a letter from a specialist psychiatrist with more information about his condition. The Council also told Mr X it would not accept letters from an online private medical service as supporting medial evidence.
22. On 16 December 2025 the Council wrote to Mr X advising him he did not meet the criteria to qualify for a Blue Badge. The Council confirmed it had considered Mr X’s application on the basis of both a very considerable difficulty walking and non-visible (hidden) disabilities.
23. The Council noted the DfT guidance states that where the presence of someone supporting the applicant negates the risk and reduces or prevents psychological distress, the person is unlikely to qualify for a Blue Badge. The Council said that based on all of the information received the independent expert assessor had concluded there was no evidence of severe difficulty walking and no evidence to confirm Mr X was at risk to himself or others during the course of a journey.
24. The Council again advise Mr X he could request a review of the decision.
25. Mr X requested a review as he believed the Council had misinterpreted the evidence he had provided and incorrectly applied the DfT criteria for hidden disabilities. Mr X confirmed he was willing to attend a face to face assessment to demonstrate the walking difficulties and psychological distress he experienced. He also provided further medical evidence from his GP and psychiatrist.
26. The Council reviewed Mr X’s application and confirmed on 12 February 2026 that it upheld its decision to refuse Mr X a Blue Badge. The Council confirmed it had reviewed the new evidence and noted this repeated what was provided in earlier submissions. It said the evidence largely reflected Mr X’s own description or interpretation of his symptoms. He had not provided objective evidence such as benefit award letters or specialist psychiatric reports that would corroborate the presence of overwhelming psychological distress.
27. Mr X made a formal complaint about the way the Council had assessed his applications on 12 February 2026. The Council told him it could not consider his complaint under the corporate complaint process as he had used the internal appeal process. It explained that having completed the appeal process he could complain to the Ombudsman.
28. Mr X has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his concerns. He says the Council did not follow the correct process or properly apply the DfT guidance for hidden disabilities. Mr X asserts the Council has failed to specifically consider or address the clinical evidence he provided, in particular a letter from his GP in December 2025 which directly addresses each of the criteria he needed to satisfy.
29. Mr X also complains the Council did not offer him an in-person assessment and relied on an independent assessor who had never met him. He says the refusal to issue a Blue Badge has reduced his independence, increased his anxiety and made him avoid essential activities.
30. Since complaining to us Mr X has made a further application for a Blue Badge and has also applied for a Freedom pass. The Council has refused these subsequent applications.
31. In response to our enquiries the Council says it would not usually ask applicants who apply for a Blue Badge under the non-visible criteria to attend face to face assessments. This may cause them undue distress. It says that following Mr X’s third application it invited him to a face to face assessment so it could explore every available assessment option.
32. Mr X did not initially want to attend because of the distress it would involve but subsequently agreed.

Analysis

33. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether Mr X should have a Blue Badge; that is the Council’s job. We can only consider whether the Council assessed his application correctly. We cannot criticise a council where officers have followed the correct procedures and reached a reasoned decision.
34. Mr X asserts the Council did not properly consider or afford sufficient weight to the evidence he provided, specifically his GP’s letters of support. The role of an applicant’s GP in making eligibility decisions had reduced considerably under the reforms to the DfT Blue Badge Scheme. The scheme is clear that an applicant’s GP cannot fulfil the role of an ‘expert assessor’. Councils can choose to accept evidence from GPs, but it cannot be the only source of evidence used to determine eligibility.
35. I am satisfied the Council took account of all the relevant evidence and followed a proper decision-making process. The assessment documents and decision letters show the assessor considered all the information and evidence Mr X provided.
36. This included the letters from Mr X’s GP in November and December 2025. The Council noted the evidence largely reflected Mr X’s own description and interpretation of his symptoms as reported to his GP. It was not satisfied this amounted to objective evidence that would corroborate the presence of overwhelming psychological distress.
37. The assessors accepted Mr X has medical conditions that cause some difficulty when walking but did not consider the difficulty described met the DfT definition of ‘very considerable difficulty walking’. The assessors also concluded that any risk to Mr X was mitigated by support from another person who travelled with Mr X.
38. There is no fault in how the Council made the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Decision

39. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman