Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue the complainant with a disabled person’s freedom pass (travel pass). This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has discriminated against him by refusing his application for a disabled person’s freedom pass.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the government guidance on concessionary travel, the mobility assessment report and medical evidence submitted by Mr X. I also considered the Transport Act 2000 and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled person’s freedom pass

5. People qualify for a pass if they receive at least eight moving around points for a benefit called Personal Independence Payment (PIP). The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) awards eight points if the person can walk between 20 and 50 metres. It awards four points if someone can walk between 50 to 200 metres. The person also qualifies for a pass if the DVLA has said the person is medically unfit to drive.
6. The government guidance says that a person will qualify for a pass if they have a condition which has a substantial effect on their ability to walk. The guidance says a pass is for people “who can only walk with excessive labour and at an extremely slow pace or with excessive pain.” A person is unlikely to qualify if they can walk more than 67 metres. The guidance says councils may consider entitlement to a pass to be automatic if the person also has a Blue Badge.

What happened

7. Mr X has a range of medical conditions and attends different hospital clinics. He has conditions which cause pain in his limbs and joints. He also has a brain condition. Mr X used to live outside London and had a Blue Badge and concessionary bus pass. The pass and badge were issued by a different council. The badge is valid until next year.
8. Mr X applied for a freedom pass when he moved to London. The pass gives free travel on public transport in London. Mr X submitted medical evidence confirming his health issues and medication. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor noted Mr X’s medical conditions, drugs and that he has a Blue Badge. She recorded that Mr X walked about 100 metres from a car to the assessment centre. She took into account Mr X’s reports that he can walk 30 metres before feeling pain and his statement that he feels pain every day which is made worse by walking. The assessor watched Mr X walk 100 metres at a moderate to slow pace. Mr X did not need to stop but walked with a slight lop-sidedness. The assessor noted that Mr X reported pain in his leg while walking but she found that he walked the 100 metres unaided and without significant difficulty. The Council decided Mr X does not qualify for a pass.
9. Mr X disagreed with the decision. He said his PIP award was due to be increased. He also said he had been diagnosed with a brain condition which can cause dizziness. The Council did not change its decision but said that he would qualify if the DWP awarded eight PIP points. It also said he would qualify if the DVLA said he was medically unfit to drive. Mr X’s PIP has not been increased and he has not told the Council that he has been stopped from driving on medical grounds.

Assessment

10. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there is fault in the way the Council has made a decision. It is not my role to decide if Mr X qualifies for a pass.
11. The Council considered the information Mr X provided on his application form and the findings of the mobility assessor. The assessment notes show the assessor considered pain, distance, balance, breathlessness and walking aids. The notes show there was a proper consideration of each point. The assessor considered Mr X’s perspective of his pain and walking ability but decided, in her professional opinion, that due to the manner in which Mr X was able to walk more than 67 metres, he does not qualify for a pass. The Council’s view is consistent with the DWP’s view that Mr X can walk between 50 to 200 metres.
12. Mr X says he should get a pass because he had one at his previous address. However, now he has moved he is required to apply to his current council and each application is assessed individually. The fact that that the previous council awarded a pass does not mean the current council is required to award one. The rules do not say that someone is entitled to a pass simply because they had been awarded one at a previous address. In addition, while the guidance says a Blue Badge might passport someone to a freedom pass, it does not say councils must give a pass to everyone who has a badge. And, it was a different council that awarded the badge.
13. Mr X has stressed he has a life-long condition which is getting worse. He says the guidance makes provision for people in such circumstances to have a pass. Mr X wants another mobility assessment to be completed by a doctor. The Council does not dispute that Mr X has permanent medical problems but it has not accepted his medical problems significantly affect his mobility. This was a view the Council was entitled to form and I have not seen any suggestion of fault in the way it reached this view. Mr X disagrees but that does not mean the Council has done anything wrong. In addition, the guidance does not say councils should use a doctor to carry out mobility assessments and there is no requirement for the Council to do a second mobility assessment. The Council has also offered to revisit the application if Mr X provides evidence of an increased PIP award or a driving restriction from DVLA.
14. Mr X says the Council has discriminated against him. However, everyone applying for a disabled person’s pass is likely to have a disability or long-term health condition. The Council cannot approve every application simply on the basis that to refuse an application would represent discrimination. I have not seen any suggestion of fault in the way the Council assessed the application. If the DWP increases Mr X’s PIP so he receives eight moving around points, or if the DVLA says Mr X cannot drive, then Mr X can reapply for a pass.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman