Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider a blue badge application for his child, Y. Mr X says this has caused him and his family distress. We have found fault in the Councils actions for failing to consider all information available to it. The Council has agreed to write to Mr X to apologise and pay him a financial payment alongside the action the Council has already taken.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider a blue badge application for his child, Y.
2. Mr X says this has caused him and his family distress.

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 Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council were invited to comment on my draft decision. I have considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. 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.
9. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.

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

What happened

14. Mr X applied for a blue badge on behalf of his son, Y. The Council assessed this and issued a decision in early June 2025 which said the application had been unsuccessful. The Council said due to the age of Y he would be supported throughout his journey which would manage the risk of harm and meant he was not eligible for a blue badge.
15. Mr X asked for the decision to be reviewed in mid-July 2025 and said Y was caused considerable distress by walking especially in noisy, unfamiliar or crowded environments. Mr X also said Y also posed a significant and immediate risk to himself, family members and others when distressed.
16. The Council considered Mr X’s review request in late July 2025 and said its decision remained the same.
17. In response to our enquiries the Council has said it has reviewed the information Mr X provided again and has concluded that Y does meet the non-visible disability eligibility criteria. The Council say this is because disability-related behaviours create significant and ongoing risk during the course of journeys.
18. The Council has made this decision based on the same information it had available to it at the time of Mr X’s application and appeal. When the Council considered all information and guidance available to it, it has reconsidered its decision. Not considering all information and guidance available to it is fault and has caused Mr X distress and time and trouble in bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman.
19. The Council says it will now award a blue badge to Y and will write to Mr X explaining the reasons for this. The Council has also said it will update staff guidance/training for decision makers to ensure they consider practical supervision and safety context when making decisions.
20. The Council say it will also introduce a light-touch quality check to confirm relevant evidence has been addressed and clear explanations are provided when making decisions.
21. I welcome the resolution the Council has suggested but in my view, it does not go far enough to remedy the injustice Mr X has suffered.

Back to top

Action

22. In addition to the remedy it suggested, within four weeks of a final decision, the Council should:

• Write to Mr X to apologise for the distress caused by 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 Mr X £50 to recognise the time and trouble caused to him.

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

Back to top

Decision

24. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman