Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a disabled person’s Freedom Pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a disabled person’s Freedom Pass. He says the assessment process was unfair and the Council did not properly apply the national eligibility criteria. Mr X says this means he is unable to travel independently and has suffered stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. People may qualify for a Freedom Pass under the Council’s discretionary scheme if they have a physical or mental health disability which has a substantial impact on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
7. Mr X applied for a Freedom Pass and provided evidence of his asthma and his medication, and supporting letters from his GP and student support services. He says his condition makes it difficult for him to walk long distances.
8. The Council considered his medical history, medical evidence and conducted a mobility assessment.
9. Mr X says the process was unfair because the Council only gave him one day’s notice of the mobility assessment. Department for Transport guidance does not set a minimum notice period. I have seen no evidence this affected the outcome of the assessment. There is not enough evidence of significant injustice to warrant an investigation.
10. The Council says that it applies Department of Transport guidance when it considers applications for a disabled person’s Freedom Pass. The Council does not have a published written policy explaining how it applies the guidance. I have seen no evidence this affected the outcome of the investigation. There is not enough evidence of significant injustice on this point to warrant an investigation.
11. Mr X says the assessor did not consider his medical evidence and did not apply Department for Transport guidance correctly when assessing his walking ability. Department for Transport guidance says councils should take medical evidence into account. The records I have seen of the Council’s decision-making show the Council considered the medical information Mr X provided and applied the guidance when making its decision. Therefore the Council reached its decision properly, so we cannot criticise the decision, as paragraph 3 explained.
12. Mr X says the assessor made inappropriate comments during the mobility assessment. There is no evidence the comments affected the outcome of the assessment. Also, even if Mr X might have found the comments inappropriate and upsetting, that is not significant enough injustice to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final Decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman