Summary: The Council failed to properly explain its appeal decision in response to Ms X’s request for a Blue Badge. This has caused Ms X uncertainty about whether the Council considered her appeal properly. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £150 and take action to prevent recurrence of the fault in future.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council wrongly declined her Blue Badge application for her son. Ms X said this has affected her and her son, as he needs a Blue Badge so they can get to the car quickly if he is having a seizure.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
6. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
7. I considered comments made by Ms X and the Council on draft decisions before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Blue Badges

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.

Hidden disabilities

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. It is good practice for Blue Badge application processes to allow applicants to provide any relevant supporting evidence such as: diagnosis letters, care plans, patient summaries, education, health and care (EHC) plans or disability benefits.

Eligibility criteria

12. Councils may issue a badge to people who are more than three years old and who satisfy one or more of the eligibility criteria set out in legislation.
13. There are two types of eligibility criteria. The first is where a person is eligible without further assessment, in which case they will receive a Blue Badge. In these cases, the applicant is generally automatically eligible due to having certain needs and receiving certain types of benefits.
14. The other, is where a person may be eligible subject to further assessment. In this case, they must fulfil one of more of the following criteria to qualify for a badge. They must either:
1. 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
2. have a permanent and substantial physical or hidden disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress; or
3. be at risk of serious harm when walking, or pose, when walking, a risk of serious harm to another person.
15. The guidance says that any of the above difficulties could potentially be caused by a physical, or by a non-visible (hidden) disability. In either case, it says the disability experienced by the applicant must endure for at least three years.
16. It says councils can consider how often an applicant experiences problems or presents risks to others. It says councils can decide if this needs to be more often than not, in order to be eligible for a Blue Badge.
17. It also says councils will 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 overcomes ‘very considerable’ difficulty, a badge would not help the applicant.
18. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.
19. Unsuccessful applicants should be given detailed feedback and a clear explanation of the reason for refusal in the decision letter. This ensures applicants feel their application has been given due consideration and makes the decision-making process transparent.

What happened

20. Ms X applied for a Blue Badge for her son, Y, in January 2024. She said Y had recently developed seizures and, in an emergency, she would struggle to get him to the car. Ms X said a Blue Badge was needed to help the family get around safely.
21. The medical evidence showed that Y was diagnosed with a seizure disorder, had experienced several seizures in approximately a nine-month period and he took medication to try and manage the condition.
22. The Council declined the application. It informed Ms X in its decision letter that the risks posed by Y’s condition were negated (overcome) by the presence of another person. It also decided that the condition was intermittent in nature and the episodes were not frequent enough to meet the criteria for a Blue Badge.
23. Ms X appealed the decision as she said the impact of Y’s seizures was significant when they happened and so he met the criteria for a Blue Badge. The Council considered the appeal request and supporting evidence again and decided the original decision was correct. However in the Council’s decision letter to Ms X it did not explain why it had not upheld her appeal.
24. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman as she said the Council’s decision was wrong. She also said since her last appeal, Y’s condition had become much more challenging and seizure activity had increased.

My findings

25. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and it is not for us to decide who qualifies for a Blue Badge. Instead I have looked at the processes the Council followed, considered whether the Council took account of all the information it received and explained its reasons properly and in line with the guidance.
26. The Council considered the information it received as part of Ms X’s initial application and explained its decision not to award Y a blue badge. The Council also considered the information it received as part of Ms X’s appeal. However the Council has accepted it then did not explain its appeal decision to Ms X. This was fault by the Council and caused Ms X uncertainty about whether it properly considered her appeal.
27. Ms X told the Ombudsman that since this appeal, Y’s condition has changed significantly. Due to the time that has passed Ms X is also now eligible to make a new application for a blue badge. As a result, I have not recommended that the Council reconsider this appeal from last year and instead it is open to Ms X to make a new application and provide the Council with the latest evidence about Y’s condition in doing so. The Council’s fault has therefore also caused a missed opportunity for Ms X to have the reasons for the Council’s appeal decision explained properly to her at the time.
28. To remedy the uncertainty and missed opportunity caused to Ms X I have recommended an apology and a financial remedy. To prevent recurrence of the fault in future, I have recommended a service improvement to the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X and pay Ms X £150 to recognise the uncertainty and missed opportunity caused by the fault in this case.
30. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Demonstrate that it has taken action - including making changes to its appeal decision letter templates if needed - to ensure that officers deciding on Blue Badge applications and appeals clearly explain how evidence has been considered, the reasons for their decisions, and how their decisions have been made in line with the guidance.
31. We publish Guidance on Remedies which sets out, in section 3.2, our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice and recommended an apology, a financial remedy and a service improvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman