Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award her son a Disabled Persons Freedom Pass. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Councils actions.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council refused her son, Y a Disabled Persons Freedom Pass without properly considering how his autism and medical condition affect travel. She believes the assessment relied on outdated information, ignored school evidence, and did not follow guidance or equality duties. She asks for a fair reassessment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Freedom Pass is a travelcard for qualifying Londoners that offers free access to public transport across the Transport for London network. The Freedom Pass scheme is governed by the general legislation on concessionary fares in England (the Transport Act 2000 and the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007) and specific London provisions contained in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Transport Act 2000. The eligibility criteria are set out in guidance from the Department for Transport (DFT)
6. People automatically qualify if they receive the higher‑rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) or at least eight points in the “moving around” section of Personal Independence Payment (PIP). Councils can also give discretionary passes in limited cases involving significant physical disabilities or severe mental illness.
7. A Travel Services Officer reviewed the medical evidence, the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), and the school’s information for Miss X’s son, Y. The Officer decided Y did not meet the criteria for either a long‑term physical mobility impairment or a severe learning disability.
8. Miss X disagreed with the decision and went through the Council’s complaints and appeals process.
9. The complaints were not upheld and the independent appeal panel confirmed Y’s application did not meet DFT criteria; it also decided the evidence did not justify giving a discretionary pass.
10. We are not an appeal body, we cannot decide whether Y should receive a Freedom Pass. Our role is to consider if there was any administrative fault in the way the Council made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, I cannot question the outcome, even if Miss X disagrees.
11. The Council considered Y’s application in line with the law, government guidance, and its own policy. It determined he did not meet the qualifying criteria. This is a decision it was entitled to make and without fault in the way it was made, I cannot question it.
12. We will not investigate this complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint as further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Councils actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman