Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Freedom Pass, because it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault. The available information shows the Council followed the correct process to reach its decision.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council failed to renew her Freedom Pass. Ms B says the Council blamed her for not providing evidence which she could not get because of delays by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Ms B says the Council failed to properly consider her medical evidence and an officer was rude and insulting. Ms B felt racially discriminated against, as felt the Council assumed she is a liar because she is white, English, and working class. Ms B is upset by the way the Council treated her and wants the Council to apologise and renew her Freedom Pass.

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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council offers various travel passes for certain people to have free travel across London and free bus journeys nationally, these are called Freedom Passes.
7. Ms B had a Freedom Pass for many years. But they are only valid if the pass holder meets the eligibility criteria and will be reviewed every five years.
8. At review Ms B did not provide evidence to show she was automatically eligible for a Freedom Pass. Ms B says it is not her fault she did not have the information needed because of delays by the DWP, equally it is not the Council’s fault. The Council could not automatically provide a Freedom Pass without the required evidence. It is still open to Ms B to provide that information once she has it and the Council will review its decision.
9. The Council completed a mobility assessment to see if Ms B met the ‘non automatic criteria’ for a Freedom Pass. It is at this assessment Ms B says the officer did not understand her medical evidence and was rude, insulting, and discriminatory.
10. Though the officer accepted they did not understand all the medical information provided, that did not affect the outcome of the mobility assessment. The assessment is to observe someone’s mobility rather than be determined by any medical condition.
11. I have seen the relevant guidance the Council should follow, a copy of the mobility assessment the Council completed for Ms B, and the letter to Ms B explaining the outcome. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify the Ombudsman investigating. It is unlikely we could find the officer was rude, insulting, and discriminatory as it is one person’s word against another. We cannot prefer one version of events if there is not evidence to support it.
12. The decision on Ms B’s Freedom Pass is based on an objective assessment of the information provided and the assessors observations from the mobility assessment. I have seen no evidence to suggest it likely the Ombudsman would find racial bias affected the outcome of Ms B’s Freedom Pass renewal. The eligibility criteria for a Freedom Pass are the same for everyone, regardless of nationality.
13. I understand Ms B’s concerns about why she was previously eligible and no longer is, despite her health condition not improving. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault in the way the Council made its decision not to renew Ms B’s Freedom Pass, and we therefore cannot question the outcome or what has changed. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different outcome. The Council made its decision based on evidence provided by Ms B and a mobility assessment, which is the correct process.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman