Summary: Mr D complains the Council wrongly refused an application for a Freedom Pass. The Council is at fault for failing to consider medical information or refer Mr D for a mobility assessment when deciding whether to issue a Freedom Pass. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to issue Mr D a Freedom Pass and make a symbolic payment to him for his time, trouble, and frustration.

The complaint

1. The complainant who I call Mr D complains the Council failed to properly consider his application to renew his Freedom Pass. Because of the Council’s failures Mr D says he has the frustration, stress, time, and trouble the Council has not processed his application properly.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 spoke with Mr D and considered information he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I also considered:-
• complaint correspondence;
• Mr D’s Freedom Pass application and correspondence between him and the Council about the Freedom Pass;
• previous complaint from Mr D reference 21 001 514;
• “Guidance to local authorities on assessing eligibility of disabled people in England for concessionary bus travel” issued in 2013.
5. Mr D and the Council agreed a resolution to the complaint during my investigation I therefore did not issue a draft decision on this complaint.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

6. The Transport Act 2000 says concessionary travel is available to passengers over 65 and any passenger a council decides is disabled. In London, a concessionary travel pass is called a “Freedom Pass”.
7. There are different categories of disabled people who can get a Freedom Pass. Category four includes people who have a disability, or have suffered an injury, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to walk. It is for a council to decide whether someone is a ‘disabled person’ for the purposes of a Freedom Pass.
8. The Department for Transport (DfT) has published “Guidance to local authorities on assessing eligibility of disabled people in England for concessionary bus travel”, “the Guidance”. It says where there is any doubt about eligibility, the guidance recommends councils seek independent medical evidence to inform their decision. The cost of this should not be borne by the applicant. It recommends independent health professionals should complete the assessments. In the case of assessment of the inability to walk, for example, occupational therapists (OTs) or physiotherapists are often best placed to assess eligibility due to their professional knowledge of mobility.
9. The Guidance also says a person may have automatic eligibility if they have been issued with a disabled persons’ parking badge (“Blue Badge”).

What happened

10. Mr D applied to renew his Freedom Pass. He used medical information to support his application that he had a disability which caused walking difficulties. The Council said the medical information was too old and Mr D needed to send more recent information. Mr D explained why he could not do this and referred the Council to a previous complaint made by him to the Ombudsman. This was about his Blue Badge application, which following the complaint investigation the Council issued without the need for an assessment. The Council rejected Mr D’s arguments and refused to refer Mr D for a mobility assessment.

Was there fault causing injustice?

11. In response to my enquiries the Council accepted it had not acted in line with the Guidance. It did not offer Mr D a mobility assessment, consider his previous complaint, or his successful application for a Blue Badge. After receiving our enquiries, the Council reviewed Mr D’s medical information and agreed to issue Mr D with a Freedom Pass.
12. The Council also agreed to make Mr D a symbolic payment for his time, trouble, frustration and inconvenience its errors caused. Mr D agreed this was a suitable remedy for his complaint.
13. I have considered whether to recommend a service improvement remedy to help prevent similar fault from occurring again. However, I am mindful the Ombudsman has recently issued a public interest report, reference 22 006 753. This makes appropriate recommendations about improvements to the Council's services and the process it should follow when assessing applicants and issuing Freedom Passes.

Back to top

Agreed action

14. The Council acted with fault which caused Mr D injustice. It has agreed to the following actions which I consider is a suitable remedy for this complaint:
1. within one month of the final decision apologise to Mr D for the failure to properly consider medical information and to refer Mr D for an independent mobility assessment;
2. within one month of the final decision pay Mr D £200 as a symbolic payment for Mr D’s time, trouble, frustration, and inconvenience.
15. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the actions above.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Council has accepted fault and provided a suitable remedy for Mr D’s injustice. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint on this basis.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman