Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew her son Mr Y’s Freedom Pass. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes or its decisions to warrant an investigation. It would be reasonable for Mrs X and Mr Y to make a further application to the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is Mr Y’s mother. Mr Y has had a Freedom Pass giving him free use of public transport for many years. Mrs X applied for a renewal of Mr Y’s pass in 2024 but it was refused then refused again on appeal. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. wrongly refused Mr Y’s application for a Freedom Pass;
2. only gave them two weeks to lodge his appeal.
2. Mrs X says Mr Y does not want to travel anywhere without the pass, which helped with his restricted daily life. She says Mr Y is worried he will not be accepted by others in his disabled club when they are on their transport trips if he has no pass. Mrs X wants the Council to accept his application and provide him with the pass.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mrs X and the Council, relevant online policies, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. Officers considered Mr Y’s renewal application and accompanying documents. They determined the application had been made on the grounds that Mr Y has learning difficulties, but did not demonstrate a diagnosis of a learning disability. Officers assessed the application against the relevant Freedom Pass criteria which required evidence of a learning disability, not learning difficulties or Mr Y’s other conditions. They refused the application because there was insufficient evidence of Mr Y having a learning disability.
8. Mrs X appealed and provided a new letter from a Council service which provides Mr Y with support. Officers noted the letter stated Mr Y had a learning disability diagnosis whereas a much older GP letter referred to Mr Y having learning difficulties, an issue they considered needed to be clarified. They determined Mr Y’s use of the Council’s support service meant other documentation clarifying his diagnoses and conditions, such as a risk assessment, care plan, clinic letters and care plan reviews should be available but had not been provided as evidence. Officers refused the appeal due to contradictory information on Mr Y’s diagnoses and a lack of formal medical evidence. However, they strongly advised Mrs X and Mr Y to reapply with the documents they mentioned in their decision.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation. The information shows the Council considered the evidence presented within the application and the appeal to make its decision to refuse the Freedom Pass, and applied the relevant eligibility criteria. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. Mrs X says the Council gave her insufficient time to appeal and refers to the deadline being two weeks after they refused the application. The Council’s refusal letter advised Mrs X and Mr Y that any appeal should be submitted within four weeks, which is in line with their published process. Mrs X’s appeal arrived at the Council just over two weeks after the initial refusal letter and was not treated as late but was considered by officers. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council on this issue to warrant us investigating.
11. As advised by officers in their final decision letter in December 2024, if Mrs X believes there is further relevant information about the impacts of Mr Y’s conditions on his eligibility for the pass, then she can reapply, submitting that information to the Council for its consideration. Alternatively, she can make a fresh application six months after the Council issued its final decision, the date for which occurs in June 2025. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to reapply to the Council and ask it to reconsider the application because it is the only authority with the powers to decide to issue the pass she seeks for Mr Y.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes to warrant us investigating; and
• it would be reasonable for her and Mr Y to make a further application to the Council for a pass.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman