Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his daughter’s application for a disabled person’s freedom pass. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to consider his daughter’s Education Health and Care Plan in full before deciding to refuse her application for a disabled person’s freedom pass.
2. He says he has to drive his daughter to and from school each day. He also says his daughter cannot begin to manage independent travel and has less exposure to social knowledge.

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))

4. 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

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. Mr X’s daughter, Miss Y applied for a disabled person’s freedom pass. She did not meet the automatic eligibility criteria and applied under a disabled person category, set out in the published Department for Transport guidance. Specifically, under the category ‘I receive Personal Independence Payments and have been awarded 8 points or more in the ‘Communicating verbally’ category’.
8. The Council referred Miss Y for a desk-based independent medical assessment. The assessor said Miss Y was not eligible for the pass because she only receives 4 points in the Personal Independence Payments communicating verbally category despite stating she receives 8. They also noted that Miss Y :
• Had not provided any evidence to show she is without speech.
• Described her walking as relatively normal.
• Did not provide evidence of a learning disability.
9. The Council therefore refused the application as Miss Y does not meet the eligibility criteria for a disabled persons’ freedom pass.
10. Miss Y appealed this decision. However, the information provided did not change the Council’s decision that she does not meet the criteria for a pass.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It has considered Miss Y’s application in line with the published eligibility criteria, including having an independent assessor screen her application. It decided the available evidence was not enough to show she meets the eligibility criteria for issuing of a pass.
12. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes it followed. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance and the evidence and information Mr X provided. There is no sign of fault in how it made its decision and so we cannot question whether that decision is right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman