Summary: The Council’s basis for refusing Mr X’s application for a freedom pass is flawed. It cited Mr X’s failure to provide requested medical information as the reason for its refusal. The evidence shows Mr X did in fact provide the information requested.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a disabled person’s freedom pass. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider the medical evidence submitted in support of his application.

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 an injustice, 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered written information provided by Mr X alongside information from the Council. I also considered relevant legislation. Both Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

5. The English National Concessionary Travel Scheme run by the Department for Transport (DfT) says bus passengers aged over 65 and disabled passengers can travel free on any off-peak local service in England.
6. Under the terms of the Transport Act 2000 it is for a local authority to decide whether someone is a ‘disabled person’ for concessionary travel. The DfT has published guidance (‘the guidance’) to local authorities on assessing eligibility of disabled people in England for concessionary bus travel.
7. 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.

Key facts

8. Mr X applied for a freedom pass in May 2025 under the criterion that he has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to walk. Mr X has several long-term health issues that cause chronic pain, as well as mental health issues. In his application, Mr X included details of his Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
9. The Council refused the application. Mr X subsequently submitted an appeal, following which the Council asked him to provide further information as set out below:

• sufficient letters from any other professionals involved in his care, or evidence of care treatments or future planned treatments all related to his mobility;
• evidence of treatments for walking difficulties/mobility;
• evidence of on-going treatment, future appointments, or referrals for future treatments to any medical related institutions/mobility walking difficulties;
• evidence of the progression of the condition over time and how it would affect his mobility.

10. Mr X provided further documents including two dated within the past 12 months which were:

• 6 January 2025 – Letter from a consultant clinician (Pain management). This sets out Mr X’s long-term conditions, the impact on his mobility and the action plan for treatment
• 9 June 2025 – Letter from physiotherapy which refers to the conditions impacting Mr X’s mobility and the treatment provided

11. Mr X believes the Council failed to consider the information.
12. The Council refused the appeal saying Mr X had not provided:

• evidence of care treatments or future planned treatments all related to his mobility;
• evidence of ongoing treatment, future appointments, or referrals for future treatments to any medical related institutions/mobility walking difficulties;
• evidence of the progression of the condition over time and how it would affect his mobility.

13. Mr X disputed this, saying the information he provided confirms he has long-term illnesses that affect him daily.

Analysis

14. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was right or wrong. Instead, we look at the processes a council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
15. From the information I have seen, it appears Mr X did send the Council the information it requested. This clearly explains his long-term conditions, the pain caused and the treatment for this. It also explains the impact on his mobility.
16. The Council’s basis for refusing Mr X’s application is flawed. It cited Mr X’s failure to provide requested medical information as the reason for its refusal. The evidence shows Mr X did in fact provide the requested information. While I cannot conclude, even after careful consideration of the medical evidence provided, whether Mr X would have been eligible for a freedom pass, the flawed decision-making process caused him unnecessary stress and uncertainty.
17. Mr X has now moved to a different council borough and is required to apply for a freedom pass in that area. However, this does not mitigate the fault identified in the Council’s decision-making process, nor the resulting injustice caused to him.

Back to top

Agreed Action

18. The Council will, within one month of the date of the final decision:

• apologise to Mr X and pay him £150 for the failures identified in this statement and for his time and trouble.

19. The Council should provide this office with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

20. The Council’s basis for refusing Mr X’s application for a freedom pass is flawed. It cited Mr X’s failure to provide requested medical information as the reason for refusal. The evidence shows Mr X did in fact provide the information requested.
21. The above recommendations are a suitable way to settle the complaint.
22. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman