Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly assess her child (Y’s) blue badge application and unreasonably rejected her appeal of this. The Council considered Y’s application and appeal in line with the relevant law and policies without fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council has failed to properly assess her child (Y’s) blue badge application and unreasonably rejected her appeal of this. This caused distress, frustration and uncertainty as Miss X says it has impacted Y’s ability to travel and their needs have gone unmet for longer than necessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Miss 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 and guidance

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:
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.
11. Children under the age of three may be eligible for a badge if they fall within either or both of the following descriptions:
• a child who, on account of a condition, must always be accompanied by bulky medical equipment which cannot be carried around with the child without great difficulty
• a child who, on account of a condition, must always be kept near a motor vehicle so that, if necessary, treatment for that condition can be given in the vehicle or the child can be taken quickly in the vehicle to a place where such treatment can be given
12. The DfT expects that, in the context of disabilities that are predominantly non-visible (‘hidden’) in nature, a risk of serious harm to self/others could manifest as one or more of the following behaviours:
• becoming physically aggressive towards others, possibly without intent or awareness of the impact their actions may have
• refusing to walk altogether, dropping to the floor, or becoming a dead-weight
• wandering off or running away, possibly without awareness of surroundings or their associated risks (for example, nearby roads, car park environments)
• disobeying, ignoring and/or being unaware of clear instructions
• experiencing very severe or overwhelming anxiety (for example, through hypervigilance)
• experiencing an overwhelming sense of fear of public/open/busy spaces
13. In this context it is recognised that some of the listed behaviours, as well as others, may be exhibited ordinarily by children who do not have any enduring or substantial disability. It is therefore important for local authorities to consider the extent of any such behaviours and/or difficulties experienced by an applicant in relation to common developmental milestones.
14. Local authorities will also need to be satisfied that such difficulties cannot otherwise be managed through reasonable coping strategies. For example, where an applicant would only ever be accompanied by another person and that negates ‘very considerable’ difficulty, a badge would not help the applicant.
15. The DfT guidance says it could be reasonable for local authorities to consider that the frequency with which an applicant experiences very considerable difficulty whilst walking during the course of a journey, or presents a risk of serious harm to themselves/others when walking during the course of a journey, should be ‘more often than not’ when determining eligibility for a Blue Badge.

What happened

16. Miss X has a child (Y) who is a preschooler. Y has a hidden disability and she says they exhibit one or more of the behaviours set out in paragraph 12 during car journeys. In October 2024, Miss X applied for a blue badge for Y. In the application she said, Y was unable to follow instruction, had no sense of danger, ran off and would experience meltdowns on car journeys. Miss X advised the blue badge would reduce the risk of harm to Y.
17. The following month the Council rejected Miss X’s blue badge application. The Council said it needed to be satisfied that the behaviours Y experiences such as significant anxiety or fear could not be managed through reasonable coping strategies. The Council said Miss X had not provided any evidence of coping strategies she uses such as giving clear instructions, holding Y’s hand or making use of reins. The Council also said it had considered developmental milestones. It concluded it was reasonable to assume most children aged five or under would be a danger in traffic and have little road sense, so it was not an appropriate consideration at this time. The Council said Miss X had also not provided evidence that Y is at a serious risk of harm ‘more often than not’ during journeys and therefore the criteria for eligibility was not met.
18. Miss X appealed the decision the same month. Miss X said she had already provided multiple reasons for why there was no evidence of her attempting coping strategies. Miss X said Y has no understanding or concentration skills to listen to and follow instruction. She also said Y has sensory issues and does not like to hold people’s hands, go in a pushchair or use reins.
19. In December 2024, the Council rejected Miss X’s appeal. The Council in its response listed the eligibility criteria for children both under and over three years of age. The Council said Miss X’s evidence does not fully support the application in terms of the actual risk, severity or frequency of occurrence. The Council reiterated that whilst Miss X reports that Y is a danger in traffic and has no road sense, it is reasonable to assume most children that age would be similar. The Council said the evidence in the application does not support that Y’s difficulties occur ‘more often than not; and therefore, the criteria was not met. The appeal letter referred Miss X to the Ombudsman.
20. In January 2025, Miss X made a further complaint to the Council as she did not agree with the decision. Miss X also said Y was over the age of three when she applied for the blue badge application, but the Council had referred to the under three eligibility criteria in the appeal response. Miss X was of the view the Council had applied the wrong criteria when considering her appeal.
21. The same month the Council responded saying it had completed a thorough review of the information provided during the application and appeal. It said Y did not meet the criteria for a Blue Badge under the relevant guidelines.
22. Miss X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of the matter and complained to us.

My findings

23. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation 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 someone disagrees with the decision the Council made.
24. After Miss X appealed the Council’s decision to decline the blue badge, the Council upheld its decision in December 2024. The initial decision and subsequent review show the Council considered all the circumstances of the case in line with the Blue Badge scheme local authority guidance. Miss X is of the view the Council incorrectly applied the criteria for children under three to Y’s application. Whilst the Council has included the eligibility criteria for both children under and over three, the Council has only applied the latter criteria when refusing the appeal. When assessing Miss X’s appeal, it considered whether Y was at a serious risk of harm when walking and whether this occurred more often than not. The Council also considered the behaviours Y exhibited in relation to their hidden disability and whether this was in line with developmental milestones and other children Y’s age.
25. After assessing Miss X’s appeal and her supporting evidence against the Blue Badge scheme local authority guidance, it decided Y did not meet the eligibility criteria for a blue badge. It was for the Council to decide what weight to give the evidence it saw, and we cannot substitute our view for that of the Council. Whilst I appreciate Miss X may not agree with the Council’s decision, there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision so I cannot question it.

Back to top

Decision

I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman