Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision to refuse the blue badge application Mrs X made for her child, Z. There is fault in the Council’s complaint handling, but this did not cause significant injustice to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse the blue badge application she made for her child, Z. She said the decision has caused her distress and that she feels unable to safely take Z out.

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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
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 Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Blue Badge Scheme

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. The guidance sets out that, in the context of hidden disabilities, a risk of serious harm to self/others could manifest as one of a range of behaviours including:
• refusing to walk, dropping to the floor or becoming a deadweight.
• wandering off or running away, possibly without awareness of surroundings or associated risks.
• disobeying, ignoring or being unaware of clear instructions.
14. It sets out 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 says it is therefore important for councils to consider the extent of any such behaviours and/or difficulties experienced by an applicant in relation to common developmental milestones.
15. It says councils will also need to be satisfied that such difficulties cannot otherwise be managed through reasonable coping strategies.
16. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

The Council’s Disabled Blue Badge Scheme

17. The Council’s scheme says those applying for a blue badge under "Hidden Disability" criteria need to provide supporting evidence from a health or social care professional or consultant (not a GP) of how a person’s disability affects them when walking. The Council gives examples of professionals who could provide the evidence required.
18. To qualify under the hidden disability criteria, an applicant must have a permanent and substantial disability that means they are at risk of serious harm when walking, or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to any other person. Or that they experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress.

What happened

19. Mrs X’s child, Z, is diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
20. Mrs X made an application for a blue badge in January 2025. The application said Z’s autism impacted their ability to walk safely as they frequently become upset or overwhelmed and could refuse to walk, lie down on the floor or try to run away. She said Z has no road safety awareness and required constant support.
21. Mrs X provided the names of professionals who had most recently assessed Z as well as letters from her GP, a further letter from her GP practice and from Z’s home tutor.
22. The Council completed its assessment in March 2025. It said Z was at risk near vehicles and regularly unable to follow instructions from their caregiver. It also said there was evidence of uncontrolled incidents but not of a refusal to walk or of running away.
23. The Council decided the risks to Z were negated by the presence of a parent or carer and declined the application. The Council advised Mrs X of her right to appeal and said she needed to provide recent relevant medical evidence that had not been included as part of her original application.
24. Mrs X submitted an appeal. In addition to information about Z’s condition, Mrs X said her physical health made it difficult to support Z for extended periods of time outside of the home.
25. Mrs X said she was unable to send recent medical evidence about Z as they had only recently moved to the Council’s area and they did not have professionals working with them.
26. Mrs X provided a completed hidden disabilities form, completed by Z’s new SEN co-ordinator.
27. The Council completed the appeal in June 2025. It said that it had reviewed the evidence and decided Z did not meet the eligibility criteria as the risk to Z was mitigated by them being accompanied.
28. Mrs X made a complaint to the Council in June 2025. She said she believed the blue badge should have been issued on the basis of the evidence she provided.
29. Mrs X said the decision of the Council showed a lack of understanding of autism and that constant supervision does not eliminate the risk to Z.
30. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint under stage one of the corporate complaints process. The Council said it had followed its correct processes in making its decision and did not uphold her complaint.
31. Mrs X made a further complaint in July 2025. The Council responded under stage two of its corporate complaints procedure. The Council said:
• Evidence Mrs X provided was either out of date, irrelevant or did not provide sufficient relevant information.
• The appeal information Mrs X submitted did not provide the required additional evidence and the hidden disability form was not reliable as the Council officer completing the form did not have direct contact with Z.
32. The Council told Mrs X the information needed for any future application. It said the hidden disability form should be completed by a qualified professional and needed to demonstrate the impact of Z’s autism on their ability to travel between a car and a destination.

Findings

33. The Council assessed Z’s eligibility for a blue badge using the criteria for mobility problems caused by hidden disabilities. The criteria relevant to Z’s assessment are that they are certified as having an enduring or substantial disability, which causes them to be unable to walk or experience very considerable difficulty walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress.
34. In her initial application Mrs X provided information confirming Z’s diagnosis. The additional evidence she provided was two or three years old or was written by people without contact details or whose role was unclear. The Council decided there was not sufficient evidence to provide Z with a blue badge and that was a decision it was entitled to take.
35. The Council’s scheme says those applying for a blue badge under "Hidden Disability" criteria need to provide supporting evidence from a health or social care professional to show how a person’s disability affects them when walking. The Council gives examples of professionals who could provide the evidence required.
36. In the appeal application Z’s hidden disability form was completed by a SEN Coordinator. This role is not included on the list of suggested professionals; they had also not met Z. The form acknowledged Z could be dysregulated, become frustrated and could be a risk to themselves and others. But they were unable to comment on Z’s refusal to walk or any anxiety.
37. 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.
38. The Council assessed Mrs X’s application in line with the guidance. It was for the Council to decide what weight to give the evidence Mrs X provided and it was not satisfied the evidence was sufficient to meet the criteria for a blue badge. There was no evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision so I cannot question it.
39. In her appeal application Mrs X explained that her own health condition impacted her ability to support Z when out of the home. Although I recognise this can make their circumstances more challenging, it is not something the Council are required to consider as a part of the criteria for a blue badge and therefore not fault by the Council to not include this information.
40. Z had not recently been assessed or supported by relevant professionals. It was therefore not possible for Mrs X to provide the evidence the Council requested. The assessment undertaken by the Council has to be evidence-based and it is not fault for the Council to require up to date information as part of its assessment.
41. When Mrs X made a stage one complaint to the Council in June 2025 the Council did not respond to her points of complaint, saying only that it had followed its processes. This lack of detail was fault. However, I do not consider it caused significant injustice to Mrs X, as the Council later provided a more detailed explanation in its stage two response.
42. In its stage two response the Council clearly outlined the evidence Mrs X needed to provide in any future application.
43. If Mrs X has more up to date information about how Y’s disability affects them when walking, it is open to her to make a new application as it is more than six months since the Council declined the previous one.

Back to top

Decision

44. I find no fault in the decision to decline a blue badge application. There is evidence of fault in the Council’s complaint handling, but I do not consider this caused injustice to Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman