Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his wife’s blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his wife, Mrs X, about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a blue badge. Mr X says the Council failed to correctly apply the Department for Transport’s hidden disability criteria correctly in its assessment of Mrs X’s application and did not consider all the medical evidence provided.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

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

9. The Council considered Mrs X’s application under the hidden disability criteria. It refused her application. It said the information provided in her application did not show she met either of the criteria for issuing of a blue badge.
10. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision and provided additional evidence in support of her application. The Council considered the information provided but upheld its decision to refuse the application and explained its reasons. It said that whilst Mrs X has some difficulties during a journey, the level of her impairment does not currently meet the eligibility criteria for issuing of a blue badge.
11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes it followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr and Mrs X disagree with it.
12. In this case, the Council assessed and decided Mrs X’s application against the relevant DfT guidance and considered the information and evidence she provided at both stages in reaching its decision. This included a letter from Mrs X’s consultant psychiatrist from May 2025; a hospital letter from January 2024 and a Department for Work and Pensions letter from June 2025. It then clearly explained its decision. There is no sign of fault in how the decision was made and we therefore cannot question it.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is in sufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman