Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered his application for a Freedom Pass. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his psychological symptoms when it assessed his application for a Freedom Pass.
2. Mr X said this meant his application was refused and he continued to face psychological distress when travelling. He wanted the Council to:
• discuss his application with a medical specialist to properly assess the psychological impact; and
• reconsider its decision.

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), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X said the Council failed to properly consider the psychological impact on him whilst travelling when it assessed his application.
7. The Council responded to Mr X. It confirmed that as part of its assessment of his application, it has considered:
• supporting evidence provided by Mr X relating to his medical condition and the impacts on him; and
• information and comments provided by Mr X relating to his medical conditions and the impacts on him.
8. It added it had considered these against the four criteria factors to determine
   Mr X’s eligibility; being:
• communication skills;
• cognitive ability;
• behavioural distress; and
• the ability to travel independently.
9. The Council explained after completing its assessment, the evidence provided was not enough to show that a Freedom Pass would help with Mr X’s conditions or how they affect him. It added his application did not meet the level required to award a Freedom Pass.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation 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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
11. In making its decision, the Council took account of:
• the relevant guidance;
• information and supporting evidence from Mr X; and
• its own policies.
12. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.
13. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman