Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions not to grant her a Freedom Pass. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision not to grant her a Freedom Pass. She believes the Council’s decision did not properly consider her disability and medical history. She says the Council’s decision has made it difficult for her to use public transport.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
4. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Freedom Pass eligibility criteria.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X applied for a Freedom Pass on the grounds her disability substantially affects her ability to walk. The Council assessed her application and determined she did not meet the criteria for a Freedom Pass because she had not provided up-to-date medical evidence showing how her disability affected her mobility.
6. Miss X appealed the decision and presented one further medical record, which was over five months old. The Council also carried out a mobility assessment. It determined that neither the medical evidence nor the assessment met the criteria for a Freedom Pass.
7. Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision. She says her medical condition has delayed effects on her which the Council has not properly considered.
8. For applicants who do not receive disability benefits, the Department for Transport requires applicants to show they cannot walk or are virtually unable to walk without experiencing severe discomfort. Extreme fatigue and stress have higher pain thresholds than others.
9. The evidence I have seen shows the Council considered Miss X’s application, her medical evidence, and the results of the mobility assessment against the Freedom Pass eligibility criteria. I am satisfied it was open to the Council to refuse Miss X’s application because she had not provided sufficient up-to-date medical evidence which clearly showed how her disability affected her mobility. She also had not demonstrated that she was unable to walk, or virtually unable to walk, during the mobility assessment. Where there is no evidence of fault in the process a council followed, we cannot question the outcome.
10. I acknowledge Miss X is unhappy with the decision. It remains open to her to submit a new application with updated medical evidence clearly showing how her disability affects her mobility.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman