Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a disabled person’s travel pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a disabled person’s travel pass. Miss X feels discriminated against because she knows people with the same disabilities as her who were issued a 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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X applied for the travel pass under category (f) “has a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning.” She provided the Council with information about her diagnosis of ADHD, Autism and suspected Dyslexia in support of her application.
8. The Council refused Miss X’s application on the basis she did not meet the criteria for issuing of a pass.
9. Miss X appealed the Council’s decision and said she knew people with the same disabilities who have been issued a pass.
10. The Council considered the information Miss X provided but maintained its decision she did not qualify for a pass and explained its reasons. It noted the assessment report she provided stated there was no evidence that Miss X has an intellectual disability and explained the information she provided did not show she meets the criteria for a pass under the learning disability criteria.
11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It assessed Miss X’s application against the relevant eligibility criteria and considered the information she provided. It has clearly explained why it does not consider Miss X meets the eligibility criteria for 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 right or wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance and eligibility criteria as well as the information Miss X provided. It followed the appropriate process in making its decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.
13. Miss X says that since her application was refused she has received diagnosis of fatty liver disease, Dyslexia and Dyscalculia. This information did not form part of Miss X’s application for a pass and so I have not considered it here. If Miss X believes the new diagnoses meet the criteria for issuing of a disabled person’s pass then she should make a fresh application to the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council in how it considered and decided her application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman