Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about public transport because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complained about the Council's decision to remove the use of physical smart cards for the Park and Ride service and move to an app-based service.
2. Ms Y says this means those who do not have suitable mobile phones are unable to use the cheaper park and ride facilities, which she believes is discrimination.

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 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

5. I considered information Ms Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms Y complained about the Council's removal of physical smart cards for its Park and Ride service and move to an app-based service. Ms y has told us that as she does not use a smart phone or the internet, she is unable to take advantage of a multi-purchase discount, which was previously available, but now only available online. She feels this is discriminatory and complained to the Council.
7. The council responded, explaining its reasons for removing the physical smart cards. It said this was because the machines used to top-up the cards were frequently broken down, vandalised and causing drivers to need to help customers in their use as a result. It also said that the cards were the least used payment method and that most passengers used an app to pay or paid for a ticket on the bus service itself. It also said the majority of those still using smart cards were topping them up online, and therefore the use of an app was suitable for the majority. It also explained how, if she wished, Ms Y could have help in learning how to use the online system.
8. The Council also explained that those who were unable to use the internet or an app were usually either elderly or using a disabled person bus pass, in which case other transport services, which were often free across the travel network, would be able to take them on similar journeys. It said this would be better value for those customers and meant an effective service was available.
9. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
10. In this case, the Council has considered relevant data about the use of its Park and Ride service. It has considered whether the continued use of smart cards is suitable with reference to information such as the way people used the previous system, flaws in the existing infrastructure and how it might affect groups of people which are unable to use the new online system.
11. The Council has considered the impact on those groups and is able to provide services to them to assist them in any transition if wanted. This demonstrates that it has considered those who are currently unable to receive offers or discounts which may be available elsewhere and is willing to make those offers available to them if they choose. It has also considered how the impact can be avoided through alternative routes and transport service, which may also be used to potentially remove any charge in Ms Y’s case by using a different service.
12. While Ms Y may disagree with the Council’s decision to change to an app-based system, the decision has been made properly and with consideration of the groups most likely to be affected. The Council has properly considered how the impact of the changes can be mitigated for members of the public such as Ms Y. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman