Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly refused her child Y’s application for a Blue Badge. There was fault in the Council’s record keeping. This caused undue distress to Miss X. The Council has agreed recommended actions to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council wrongly refused her child Y’s application for a Blue Badge under the hidden disability criteria. She said the Council misapplied Department for Transport (DfT) guidance and did not properly consider Y’s needs. She also said the Council refused reasonable adjustments when she asked for alternatives to a face-to-face assessment, such as a virtual assessment or home visit.
2. Miss X said this caused her distress and frustration and required significant time and effort pursuing the matter. She also said she remained uncertain whether the Council had properly considered her son’s needs.

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)
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)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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 guidance and legislation

Blue Badge scheme

8. The Blue Badge scheme provides parking concessions to people with severe mobility problems, introduced under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
9. The DfT’s Blue Badge guidance expects councils to operate assessment processes that are fair, consistent and clear, and to consider all relevant evidence when determining eligibility
10. The scheme includes people with non-visible disabilities where they may be at risk of harm or experience significant distress when accessing the community.
11. Certain individuals qualify without further assessment if they receive specific disability-related benefits or awards, such as the Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance or certain Personal Independence Payment (PIP) scores.
12. Applicants who do not meet automatic criteria may qualify if certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring and substantial disability causing them to be unable to walk, experience very considerable difficulty walking (including psychological distress), or face risks of serious harm when walking.
13. The Department for Transport’s Blue Badge guidance allows councils to assess applications using a range of methods, including paper-based assessments, telephone discussions and, where necessary, face-to-face assessments. It expects councils to take a proportionate approach and gather sufficient evidence to make a decision.

What happened

14. Miss X applied for a Blue Badge for her child Y in April 2025. The Council assessed the application under the DfT Blue Badge guidance as Y was not automatically eligible.
15. The Council refused the application in early June 2025. Miss X appealed the decision a few days later. As part of the appeal process, the Council carried out a telephone assessment on in early June 2025 to gather further information.
16. Miss X asked the Council during the appeal process to assess Y using an alternative method, including a home visit or virtual assessment. The Council did not offer these options and told Miss X it required a face-to-face clinic assessment. The Council recorded that Miss X did not wish to attend a clinic appointment and confirmed the refusal would stand.
17. The Council issued its appeal decision in mid-June 2025. It said Y did not meet the eligibility criteria. It explained that it considered the risks identified to be managed through coping strategies such as parental supervision and the use of a specialist buggy. It also said Y could access community venues with age-appropriate support. The Council did not uphold the complaint.
18. Miss X continued to pursue the matter and provided further evidence, including information from Y’s school. The Council completed a further review in September 2025 and again decided Y did not meet the eligibility criteria.
19. The Council said in response to our enquiries it had considered Miss X’s request for alternative assessment methods. It said it required a face-to-face assessment to observe Y’s mobility and behaviour in an unfamiliar environment. It also said it did not formally record its reasoning when considering requests for reasonable adjustments.

Analysis and findings

20. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether Y should receive a Blue Badge. That decision is for the Council. We can consider whether the Council followed a proper decision-making process.

Consideration of reasonable adjustments

21. Miss X asked the Council to consider alternative assessment methods, including a home visit or virtual assessment. She also raised concerns about Y attending a clinic assessment and the adjustments that may be needed to support this. The Council did not offer these options and required a face-to-face clinic assessment.
22. The Council said it considered Miss X’s request and decided it needed to observe Y’s mobility and behaviour in an unfamiliar environment. The Council was entitled to seek further evidence in this way.
23. However, the Council confirmed it did not formally record its reasoning when it considered requests for reasonable adjustments. There was no record showing how the Council assessed Miss X’s request, what alternatives or adjustments it considered, why it rejected those options in Y’s case, or what information it provided to Miss X about how a clinic assessment would be managed. There was also no evidence the Council clearly explained this reasoning to Miss X at the time.
24. The Council failed to evidence it properly considered reasonable adjustments in a transparent and accountable way when it made its decision. This was fault.

Use of a face-to-face assessment

25. The Council provided evidence that it used face-to-face assessments in a small proportion of cases where it could not determine eligibility from existing information. There is no evidence the Council applied a blanket policy requiring such assessments.
26. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to seek a face-to-face assessment in this case.

Accuracy of records

27. Miss X said the Council wrongly recorded that she declined an assessment. The evidence showed Miss X requested alternative assessment methods and the Council interpreted this as a refusal to attend a clinic assessment. Miss X may have declined only the clinic-based assessment rather than the assessment process entirely. But there is insufficient evidence to make a finding on this point as there was no independent record or recording of the conversation.

Injustice

28. The procedural fault identified relates to failure in the Council’s decision-making process. The Council’s failure to properly record and explain its reasoning caused Miss X distress and frustration, time and trouble pursuing the complaint and uncertainty about whether the Council properly considered her request for reasonable adjustments

Back to top

Action

29. Within one month of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X for the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay £150 to Miss X to recognise the distress caused by the fault identified.
• Carry out a fresh review of Y’s Blue Badge application. As part of this review, it should clearly consider any request for reasonable adjustments to the assessment process, ensure it records its reasoning for the decisions it makes, and provide Miss X with a clear explanation of the outcome.
30. Within three months of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Produce an action plan to improve how it records decisions where reasonable adjustments are requested in Blue Badge assessments. The plan should set out how the Council will ensure officers record the options considered, the reasons for their decision, and how this is communicated to applicants, and how it will monitor compliance.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman