Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s disabled person’s bus pass application because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that he previously had a disabled person’s bus pass, but the Council has refused to renew it. He says he cannot afford to pay bus fares and would like the Council to renew his bus pass.

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 or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Disabled Persons Travel Permit scheme helps people with severe and permanent mobility difficulties, or other conditions affecting mobility, to access local transport.
7. Mr X said the Council did not properly consider his medical conditions when it refused to renew his travel permit. The evidence shows the Council considered the information Mr X provided in his application and then sought further medical evidence from his GP as part of a review. The medical declaration confirmed, based on physiotherapy assessment, that Mr X does not meet the DfT eligibility criteria for a travel permit.
8. The Council considered the medical evidence it received during the review process and decided it did not show Mr X has a permanent and substantial mobility difficulty comparable to the DfT criteria. It therefore decided there was no basis to change its original decision to refuse the application.
9. The Council explained its decision to Mr X and advised him he could reapply if his condition worsened or if he could provide new medical evidence to support a future application.
10. Mr X wants us to renew his bus pass. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not decide whether Mr X should have a travel permit. Instead, we consider whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. The Council followed the correct process, obtained and considered relevant medical evidence, and explained its decision.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman