Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for a disabled persons freedom pass. 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 she is not eligible for a disabled persons freedom pass and says the Council did not assess the application correctly.

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 Mrs X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and hearing reports submitted by Mrs X. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
4. 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

My assessment

5. People who are profoundly or severely deaf qualify for a disabled persons freedom pass.
6. Mrs X applied for a pass. She supplied a hearing assessment report which says she has “bilatieral mild to severe sensorineural hearing loss”. The Council asked for another report to provide more clarity about the level of hearing loss. Mrs X submitted another report, from the same clinic, which says she has mild to moderate hearing loss. The Council checked with three other councils whose officers all said they would not have awarded a pass on the information provided. The Council decided not to award a pass.
7. Mrs X disagrees and says the Council has used an average which has diluted the degree of hearing loss. She says she qualifies because she has a high degree of hearing loss in both ears and reaches the level of severe hearing loss.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council acted appropriately by asking for further evidence and that report says Mrs X has mild to moderate hearing loss. Mrs X may disagree, and may feel her hearing loss is more severe, but I cannot find fault in the Council’s decision to follow the findings of an independent audiologist. If the audiologist had found that Mrs X had a severe or profound hearing loss then it is reasonable to expect that would be stated on the second report, echoing the shorter first report; but it did not.
9. We are not an appeal body and we cannot decide the degree of hearing loss or whether someone is eligible for a pass. We can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council assessed the application and I see no suggestion of fault. The fact Mrs X disagrees with the decision does not mean the Council has done anything wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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