Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised him on how to apply for a Freedom Pass for disabled people and then rejected his claim. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly advised him on how to apply for a Freedom Pass for disabled people and when it rejected his application and appeal, told him he must wait six months before he could reapply.
2. Mr X says it has caused him distress and prevented him from attending his medical appointments because he cannot afford to take public transport. He wants the Council to provide him with a Freedom Pass.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Freedom Pass for disabled people is funded by local councils and gives free travel on most public transport in London. There are statutory disabilities which make someone eligible for a Freedom Pass. Some councils also offer Freedom Passes on a discretionary basis but there is no requirement to do so. The London Borough of Lambeth does not operate a discretionary scheme and informs residents it will not issue a Freedom Pass on the basis that someone is disabled and experiencing financial hardship unless they have an eligible statutory disability.
7. Mr X applied for a Freedom Pass for disabled people. He was refused because the medical evidence he provided was largely a result of him self-reporting his walking difficulties. His appeal was also unsuccessful. The Council informed him in its stage 1 complaint response he could appeal further but needed to provide up-to-date medical evidence demonstrating the extent of his walking impairment. In its final complaint response, the Council also said Mr X could submit another application in six months’ time, or earlier, if his condition changed or he had new medical evidence of his mobility.
8. Mr X is unhappy because he says the Council misinformed him about which pass to apply for and now will not let reapply for six months.
9. The Council assessed Mr X’s application and appeal for a Freedom Pass for disabled people which was the correct category. It informed Mr X what information he needed to provide in order to be eligible. Mr X can reapply if his condition worsens or he has up-to-date medical information about his mobility. As explained on the Council website, it does not issue passes on the basis of financial hardship. Because there is not enough evidence of fault, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman