Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to grant a discretionary companion bus pass. We cannot decide whether the Council’s policy is discriminatory under the Equality Act, as this can only be determined by the courts. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council refused to issue his wife with a discretionary bus pass plus companion (C+). He says the Council has acted unfairly and discriminatorily by excluding neurological impairments from its eligibility criteria and by refusing to accept points awarded under the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) descriptor “Planning and following a journey”. He also says the Council failed to properly consider his wife’s inability to travel independently.

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. 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)
4. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council operates a discretionary concessionary travel scheme, including provision for a bus pass plus companion (C+). The Council has published eligibility criteria for this scheme, including the evidential routes it accepts. These include specified thresholds under certain PIP descriptors. The Council’s policy does not treat points awarded under “Planning and following a journey” as qualifying evidence for C+.
8. The evidence shows the Council applied its published criteria correctly. It explained the criteria to Mr X and set out clearly why the evidence he relied on did not meet the accepted evidential thresholds under its discretionary scheme. We are not an appeal body and cannot substitute alternative eligibility criteria for those adopted by the Council.
9. Mr X also says the Council’s policy is discriminatory and fails to comply with the Equality Act 2010. We cannot decide whether a council’s policy breaches the Equality Act, as this can only be determined by the courts. Consideration of whether the policy lawfully discriminates between different types of disability therefore falls outside the Ombudsman’s remit.
10. As the Council has followed its published policy and a proper decision‑making process, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because we cannot decide whether the Council’s policy breaches the Equality Act. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman