Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for a Taxicard. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision that is not eligible for a Taxicard.

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 response. This includes the mobility assessment and decision letters sent by the Council. I considered comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Taxicard

5. Taxicard is a door-to-door taxi service for people with mobility problems who have difficulty using public transport. Holders can make 40 trips a year. People cannot qualify because they have problems carrying shopping.

What happened

6. Mrs X applied for a Taxicard. She has a range of medical problems which affect her breathing, balance and strength. She applied for a Taxicard. She says she needs it to get to weekly appointments, especially medical appointments, because she finds it hard to walk to the bus stop.
7. The Council did a mobility assessment. The assessor noted that Mrs X walked 120 metres from the bus stop to the centre. He noted her medical conditions, her medication and that she had a fall early in 2019. Mrs X provided the assessor with medical evidence. The assessor watched Mrs X walk back to the bus stop with a mild limp. Mrs X did not have to stop and worked at a slow pace. She demonstrated mild breathlessness but did not have to use an inhaler. The assessor noted Mrs X showed signs of minor pain and he noted that she takes mild painkillers. The Council decided Mrs X does not qualify for a Taxicard.
8. Mrs X appealed. She said she uses a stick, and she stressed the problems she has in all her limbs and that she is weak on one side of her body. She explained she is waiting for an Occupational Therapy assessment. She said she cannot carry weight which restricts her shopping and she has to use public transport as she does not drive. She said will not be able to get to her medical appointments without help. The Council reviewed all the evidence but did not change its mind.

Assessment

9. 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 Mrs X qualifies for a Taxicard.
10. The Council considered the information provided by Mrs X and the findings of the mobility assessor. The assessment notes show the assessors considered pain, distance, balance, breathlessness and walking aids. The notes show there was a proper consideration of each point. The Council decided Mrs X’s mobility is not so restricted that she cannot use public transport. Mrs X disagrees but I have not seen any fault in the way the Council reached this decision so there is no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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