Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the wording the Council used in a letter after the complainant applied for a Freedom 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, complains about comments the Council made in a letter after he applied for a Freedom Pass. He says the Council has dismissed his mental health condition and failed to acknowledge its error.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes Mr X’s application and letters from his doctor. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X applied for a Freedom Pass. He supplied two letters from his psychiatrist from 2021. The Council wrote to Mr X and referred to one of the letters. The Council said the letter suggested Mr X’s condition was under control because it said he would not be having further therapy and the risk to Mr X was low. The Council’s letter invited Mr X to provide further evidence if his condition had changed since last year. The Council wrote to Mr X in April again inviting him to provide more information so it could continue to process his application for a pass. The Council explained what evidence Mr X needed to send.
5. The Council says Mr X has not provided more evidence so it has not been able to make a decision on the application.
6. Mr X complained to the Council that it had dismissed his mental health by stating his condition was under control. In response the Council said it had not made a decision on his eligibility for a pass because he has not provided enough information. It said it had not made a decision based on the doctor’s letter but had referred to it and asked for more information. The Council said it would have been helpful if Mr X had provided the full report about his PIP benefit award or a report from a clinic he had been referred to.
7. The doctor’s letter does state Mr X’s risk to self is low and he was not due to have more therapy. It also said the doctor was going to refer Mr X to another clinic. The Council’s letter could have mentioned the referral. That said, the Council’s letter was not a decision, but a request for more information, and the Council did say the doctor’s letter “suggested” Mr X’s condition was under control. Whilst the Council’s letter was perhaps a little selective in what it referred to this does not represent fault requiring an investigation. In saying this, I stress the letter was not a decision on the application but an invitation for Mr X to provide more information. I appreciate Mr X found the letter dismissive of his health but, while I recognise his concerns, there is not enough fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman