Summary: Ms T complains the Council refused her application for a freedom pass when she moved into the Council’s area, despite having been granted a pass by her previous Council. We do not find fault in the actions of the Council. It is entitled to make its own policy for assessing eligibility for freedom passes based on the national guidance, which it has done so.

The complaint

1. Ms T complains the Council refused her application for a freedom pass when she moved into the Council’s area, even though her previous Council had granted her a freedom pass. She says the Council’s refusal to grant her a freedom pass is against national guidance. Ms T says that because the Council refused her application, she has been unable to access concessionary travel and had to pay for it herself.

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 a council’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 read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I discussed the case with Ms T on the telephone.
5. I sent a draft decision to Ms T and the Council and considered any comments made in response.

Back to top

What I found

National guidance

6. The Department for Transport (DfT) has published guidance to local authorities on assessing eligibility of disabled people in England for concessionary bus travel.
7. In London, a concessionary bus pass is called a freedom pass.
8. The guidance says “The Department recommends that, where available, the most robust way of assessing eligibility is likely to be via other relevant state benefits. Eligibility for a concessionary travel pass may be considered "automatic" (not requiring further assessment) where a person is in receipt of any of the following state benefits, which link eligibility to receive the benefit to the ability to walk or, in the case of PIP, to communicate orally, provided that the person is of fare paying age and that the award of the benefit has been for at least 12 months or is expected to be for at least 12 months:

a. Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance (HRMCDLA);

b. Personal Independence Payment (PIP), where the applicant has been awarded at least eight points against either the PIP "Moving around" and/or "Communicating verbally" activities;

c. War Pensioner's Mobility Supplement (WPMS).”

9. The guidance also says “for other applicants, where there is any doubt about eligibility, the Department recommends that local authorities seek independent medical evidence to inform their decision. The cost of this should not be borne by the applicant.”

What happened

10. Ms T said she suffers with multiple sclerosis and has difficulty walking. She is in receipt of a blue badge and a personal independence payment (PIP), where she was awarded 10 points for “moving around”.
11. Ms T said she moved into the Council’s area and was in receipt of a freedom pass from the Council area she was leaving. She said her previous Council awarded a freedom pass for anyone who is awarded 8 points or more for moving around as part of their PIP.
12. Ms T’s previous freedom pass developed a fault when it had six months remaining on it. She found that she would need to approach her new Council to replace it. There was no transfer process for the freedom pass, so she had to apply again.
13. The Council rejected her application as it said Ms T had not provided medical evidence on her walking difficulty.
14. The Council’s decision was appealed by Ms T. She provided further detail about how she had already been allocated a freedom pass previously by another local Council, and supporting medical evidence.
15. The Council said it investigated and found Ms T had been awarded a freedom pass previously as she had been awarded more than 8 points for “moving around” as part of her PIP. The Council said that whilst other Councils accept that as qualifying criteria for a freedom pass, it does not recognise it as such.
16. After further considering Ms T’s application and appeal, the Council said it invited Ms T to an assessment with an independent occupational therapist. It said it did this as the medical evidence provided by Ms T did not evidence how her multiple sclerosis was affecting her now. It said it could not use the assessment used for the PIP as it took place three years prior.
17. Ms T declined to attend the assessment as she did not feel she should have to be put through the additional scrutiny and was heavily pregnant at the time. She also said the Council was acting against the DfT guidance.

Analysis

18. The DfT guidance suggests criteria that Councils may wish to use to determine those who are automatically eligible for concessionary bus travel in England. However, it does not state that Council’s must use such criteria and it is open to each Council to design its own policy.
19. In this case, the Council has decided its policy is not to recognise a PIP ‘moving around’ score of 8 or more points as automatic qualification for a freedom pass. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
20. It did offer Ms T an assessment, which is part of its policy in the circumstances, but Ms T declined to attend. It is still open to Ms T to reapply for a freedom pass and request an assessment.
21. I do not find fault in the actions of the Council. I appreciate the frustration experienced by Ms T in that her PIP award allowed her to receive a freedom pass from another Council, but not this one. The DfT guidance to local authorities allows each Council to set its own policy, and I have not found any fault in the Council’s policy for how it considers and processes freedom pass applications. The Council has applied its policy correctly when considering Ms T’s freedom pass application.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I close this case without a finding of fault against the Council for the reasons detailed in this statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman