Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not re-issue concessionary travel vouchers. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to re-issue discretionary travel vouchers. She also says the Council did not take evidence from her local councillor and MP into account. Mrs X wants the Council to re-issue the vouchers she did not use.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council issues travel vouchers, worth £36, to people who would qualify for a bus pass but cannot use public transport. The vouchers can be used on services such as dial a ride and taxis. The Council is not required to provide the vouchers but does so as an additional service. The rules say the vouchers remain the property of the Council, are valid until the expiry date, and can be withdrawn by the Council at any time. The vouchers remained valid throughout 2020/21 but some of the services were, at times, suspended due to COVID-19.
5. Mrs X did not use the vouchers for 2020/21 because she was shielding. She asked the Council to re-issue the vouchers she did not use. The Council declined. It explained the vouchers were not withdrawn, it is a discretionary service, and it does not have the resources to amend the scheme and re-issue vouchers to everyone who receives vouchers. It explained the pandemic has put a significant strain on Council resources. The Council responded to emails from Mrs X’s MP and local councillor.
6. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. This is because the rules say the vouchers are only valid until the expiry date and there is no provision for unused vouchers to be re-issued. In addition, services remained available for Mrs X to use and the Council responded to her local councillor and MP. We are not an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
7. I also will not start an investigation because a dispute over £36 does not represent enough injustice to warrant an investigation. In addition, the purpose of the vouchers is to facilitate travel. If Mrs X did not need to travel, or was unable to travel, then the vouchers were not needed at that time. The Council issues new vouchers each year so Mrs X will be able to benefit from them when she is able to travel.

Back to top

Final decision

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman