Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. The Council failed to undertake an adequate assessment of Mrs X’s mobility in considering her application for a renewal of a concessionary travel pass.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly consider her application to renew her concessionary travel pass.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
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 have:

• considered the complaint and additional information provided by Mrs X
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the responses
• taken account of relevant legislation
• offered Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document, and considered the comments made.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

5. There are two broad categories of people eligible for a statutory concession: men and women who have attained the state pension age and eligible disabled people (where no age limits apply).
6. The Department for Transport issued guidance to local authorities on assessing eligibility for travel passes. It says “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

• 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… Applicants claiming these benefits will be able to provide documentary evidence of their entitlement”.

7. The guidance also says, “Eligibility may also be considered automatic where a disabled person of fare paying age has been issued with a disabled persons’ parking badge ("Blue Badge")”.
8. Where there is any doubt about eligibility, the Department for Transport that local authorities seek independent medical evidence to inform their decision. The costs of this should not be borne by the applicant.
9. Using an applicant’s GP to verify that an individual meets the criteria for a concessionary travel pass is regarded as an unsatisfactory arrangement for both the GP and the administrators of the scheme.

What happened

10. Mrs X has fibromyalgia, arthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which causes her to be breathless. Consequently, she has difficulty walking. She has had a mobility pass for more than 10 years. Mrs X says her condition has not changed/improved in the last 10 years.
11. Mrs X applied to the Council in May 2020 to renew her travel pass. On the application form she ticked a box to confirm she was in receipt of ‘Higher DLA/PIP enhanced or standard mobility’. People in receipt of these benefits have automatic entitlement to a concessionary pass. The Council had no information about Mrs X’s entitlement to such benefits, so it asked her to provide evidence.
12. Mrs X provided the Council with a copy of a PIP award letter which stated she received the standard rate for daily living. She did not receive a mobility award. A council officer telephoned Mrs X to gather more information. Following the discussion, the Council awarded Mrs X a score of 21. The threshold for entitlement is 23 and over. The Council referred Mrs X for an independent medical assessment. Because of the Coronavirus pandemic the assessment was completed by telephone on 1 July 2020. The assessor reported “Whilst she reports fibromyalgia, arthritis, COPD, and that she is only able to walk for less than a minute however, she states she is not under specialist care. She is taking inhalers and moderate pain medication with good effect. She was not breathless as she narrated her history. She reports she is able to mount stairs slowly suggestive of adequate exercise capacity. There is no evidence to suggest severe functional restrictions and an inability to walk at least 80 metres reliably”.
13. The Council wrote to Mrs X in July 2020 to inform her that she did not meet the criteria for a concessionary pass. It invited her to submit further information which it had not already considered.
14. As Mrs X was not under the care of a specialist she requested the Council write to her GP. The Council received a response from the GP practice in September 2020 saying, “Doctor Unable To Complete As Patient Does Not Meet Criteria”
15. The Council wrote to Mrs X in September 2020 to inform her about the response from the GP practice and to confirm she did not meet the eligibility criteria for a concessionary pass.
16. As part of this investigation, I asked the Council to explain on what basis, Mrs X’s application had been approved in previous years. It says it “…has not been able to retrieve the application from 10 years ago when a Travel Pass was awarded, and I am therefore unable to comment on any change in circumstances we have recorded which has contributed to the decision for [Mrs X] not being awarded this benefit”. Due to an IT system change, the Council has been unable to retrieve the application Mrs X made in 2019. It says the system did not store successful applications. The Council offered to obtain a copy of the application from the Department of Work and Pensions.

Analysis

17. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if Mrs X is eligible for a concessionary travel pass, that is the Council’s role. The Ombudsman’s role is to decide if the Council assessed Mrs X’s application properly and in accordance with government guidelines.
18. In this case I do not consider it has. The independent assessment of Mrs X’s mobility was insufficient. A telephone assessment is not a sufficient way to accurately assess a person’s mobility. The assessor’s comments that Mrs X was not breathless whilst talking on the telephone was not relevant to a determination about her mobility.
19. Mrs X qualified for a pass for the last ten years. There would need to be a material change in either her circumstances or the relevant policy or law in order for her to no longer qualify. The Council has provided no evidence to show such a change in circumstances.

Agreed action

20. The Council has agreed to provide Mrs X with a temporary travel pass until it is able to arrange a face-to-face assessment of her mobility. It agreed to provide Mrs X with a written apology for its failure to properly assess her mobility. It should provide evidence of the above to this office.

Back to top

Final decision

21. There is evidence of fault in this complaint. The Council failed to undertake an adequate assessment of Mrs X’s mobility in considering her application for a renewal of a concessionary travel pass.
22. The above recommendations are a suitable way to remedy the injustice caused.
23. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman