Summary: There was procedural fault in the Council’s assessment of a Blue Badge application made by Miss Y. The Council will invite Miss Y to apply again, complete a fresh assessment and review its Blue Badge policy to ensure compliance with national guidance.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council’s refusal of her Blue Badge application made on behalf of her child, D. She says the Council did not properly consider the evidence she provided, including D’s award of Personal Independence Payment (PIP), their Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and other parental evidence. Miss Y says the Council placed too much weight on the lack of specialist medical evidence.
2. Miss Y says the fault caused injustice because she lost the opportunity for the Council to properly review whether D met the criteria for a Blue Badge. As a result, there is uncertainty about whether D would have received a Blue Badge had the Council properly assessed the application.

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 recommend 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

What should happen

7. The Department for Transport (DfT) publishes guidance for councils on administering and assessing Blue Badge applications. It says councils should consider applications under the relevant eligibility criteria and reflect on all the evidence available when deciding whether an applicant meets those criteria.
8. For applications involving non-visible disabilities, the guidance says relevant supporting evidence may include diagnosis letters, care plans, patient summaries, Education Health and Care (EHC) plans and disability benefit information. Councils may also consider evidence from a GP, provided this is not the only source of evidence used to determine eligibility. Where necessary, councils may seek further information from health or social care professionals, schools or others who can provide insight into how the person’s disability affects them during a journey. If the available evidence is insufficient to determine eligibility, the guidance says the council should seek certification from an expert assessor.  
9. The decision maker should compare the information provided in the application with any supplementary information and relevant professional evidence. They should weigh the evidence about the risk of harm or difficulty the person experiences while walking during a journey and consider the overall impact of any combination of enduring and substantial disabilities. The guidance says decision makers should document their decision, including their reasoning, so the council can explain its decision to the applicant.
10. Councils should keep a record of the procedures used and the outcome of the assessment process to provide transparency for applicants and to demonstrate that it followed the correct procedures if someone later complains to the Ombudsman. For applications involving non-visible disabilities, the guidance also recommends documenting the assessment approach used for the individual applicant, as this allows the council to show why it considered that approach appropriate if its decision is subsequently challenged.  

What happened

11. In March 2025 Miss Y applied to the Council for D to receive a Blue Badge. The Council acknowledged the application but requested further supporting evidence before it could begin its assessment. In particular, the Council asked for evidence of the hidden disabilities referred to by Miss Y in the application.
12. The Council told Miss Y it could not accept information from their GP alone and this must be supported by specialist evidence.
13. On 29 July 2025 the Council wrote to Miss Y again to chase the further information it had requested in March.
14. The Council issued its decision on 8 August 2025. This confirmed it had decided to refuse the application because the applicant had not demonstrated how they met the criteria for hidden disabilities. The decision letter set out examples of the types of behaviours which may indicate eligibility; such as running away or refusing to walk. The Council told Miss Y that she should provide additional evidence should she wish to ask for a review of the decision. The Council again said GP evidence alone would not be accepted and must be supported by specialist medical evidence.
15. Miss Y requested a review on 12 August 2025. She said D experiences severe anxiety when completing journeys in public or when in unfamiliar places. Miss Y explained this meant D often avoided journeys.
16. Miss Y referred to PIP evidence and D’s EHCP to support her application.
17. The Council responded on 30 September. It explained that it needed further evidence to demonstrate that D’s condition was enduring and had a significant and regular impact on their mobility. The Council again said Miss Y “must” supply specialist medical evidence in addition to any information from their GP.
18. On 6 November 2025 the Council issued its final decision. Its letter explained the Council considered the evidence provided, including the PIP award and the EHCP, bur decided D did not meet the criteria. In summary, the Council said:
• the PIP award showed significant difficulty planning and following journeys but did not show overwhelming psychological distress.
• the relevant PIP descriptor was that D could not follow a familiar route without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid.
• the application form stated D used a route planner, which the Council said mitigated the need for a Blue Badge.
• the EHCP evidenced D’s difficulties in an educational setting but did not indicate a serious risk of harm to D or others in the community.
• requiring support with journeys did not, in itself, satisfy the Blue Badge criteria unless accompanied by very considerable psychological distress or a risk of serious harm.
19. Dissatisfied with the response, Miss Y complained to the Ombudsman.

Was there fault by the Council causing injustice to Miss Y and D?

20. On several occasions the Council told Miss Y it could not accept GP evidence unless accompanied by evidence from a specialist professional. The DfT guidance does not say applicants must provide specialist medical evidence. It says councils may accept evidence from a GP as long as this is not the only source of evidence used to determine eligibility.
21. In this case, the records provided by Miss Y show that information from D’s GP was not the only evidence available. Miss Y also provided D’s PIP decision and EHCP. The DfT guidance specifically identifies disability benefit information and EHCPs as examples of evidence councils may consider when assessing applications relating to non-visible disabilities.
22. The Council appears to have interpreted the DfT's restriction on relying solely on GP evidence as meaning applicants must always provide additional specialist medical evidence. In my view, these are not the same thing.
23. The decision letter shows the Council considered the PIP decision and EHCP but decided they did not sufficiently demonstrate that D experienced the relevant difficulties during journeys. It was entitled to reach that view on the weight of those documents. However, if the evidence left the Council unable to determine whether D met the criteria, the DfT guidance says that councils should gather further evidence, including from schools and other professionals. In some cases, it is necessary to seek certification from an expert assessor where the available evidence is insufficient to determine eligibility.
24. The Council has destroyed the original application and assessment records under its 90-day retention arrangements. We therefore cannot establish exactly what Miss Y told the Council about D’s behaviour during journeys, including their reported refusal to walk and dropping to the floor, or how the Council considered that information. This is relevant because the Council’s own decision letter identifies refusing to walk and dropping to the floor as behaviours which may be relevant to eligibility. The absence of the records prevents effective scrutiny of whether the Council properly considered all the relevant information before reaching its decision. The Council’s inability to evidence sound decision-making process is administrative fault.
25. We cannot say what decision the Council would have reached had it properly considered the application without requiring specialist medical evidence and, where necessary, obtained further evidence or an expert assessment. The Council’s destruction of the records also means neither Miss Y nor the Ombudsman can now establish whether it properly considered the information originally provided. This is fault causing injustice which the Council will provide a remedy for.

Back to top

Action

26. Within four weeks of our final decision the Council will invite Miss Y to re-apply for a Blue Badge, should she wish to. The Council should ensure its assessment of the new application is compliant with the DfT guidance. If it is unable to make a decision based on the available information, it should consider the input of an expert assessor.
27. Within three months of my final decision, the Council will review its retention arrangements for unsuccessful Blue Badge applications. In doing should, it should have regard to 4.78 of the DfT’s guidance which says that councils should keep a record of its assessment. The review should consider whether the current retention period allows the Council to retain sufficient records to:
• respond to review requests and complaints;
• demonstrate what evidence it considered and how it reached its decisions;
• provide information requested during Ombudsman investigations; and
• ensure effective accountability and scrutiny of its decision-making.
28. The Council will provide the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review, including any changes it intends to make to its retention arrangements.
29. The Council will also review paragraph 3.29 of its Blue Badge policy to make clear that specialist medical evidence is not required to support every application involving a non-visible disability. The revised policy should make clear that decision makers must consider and weigh all relevant evidence in accordance with the DfT guidance and record their reasoning, including the weight given to the evidence.
30. The Council will provide the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review, including any changes it intends to make to its policy.

Back to top

Decision

31. I find fault causing injustice. The Council will complete the above actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman