Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

London Borough of Enfield (18 005 425)

Category : Transport and highways > Public transport

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 30 Jan 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about its handling of his applications for a Disabled Persons’ Freedom Pass for concessionary travel. The Council agreed to reimburse travel costs Mr B should not have had to pay and improve its procedures. We are satisfied with the action the Council has agreed to take, so there is no need for an investigation.

The complaint

  1. Mr B says the Council has failed to respond to his complaint about its handling of his applications for a Disabled Persons’ Freedom Pass for concessionary travel on public transport, because of which he incurred travel costs he should not have.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered what Mr B said in his complaint and the Council’s response to it, and discussed the matter by telephone with Mr B.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr B applied for a Freedom concessionary travel pass because of his disability. The Council sent his application for assessment but it went astray and the Council did not follow it up. Mr B made a second application which the Council also sent for assessment. It was refused but Mr B did not learn about the decision until much later. Meantime he moved areas and obtained a Freedom Pass where he now lives.
  2. The Council had not issued a final response to Mr B’s complaint when he complained to the Ombudsman. It completed its own investigation soon after, has accepted it was at fault, and offered a suitable remedy and service improvements.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £132 to cover his avoidable travel costs, which Mr B has accepted is a suitable remedy for him.
  2. The Council has also agreed to:
    • develop a system to track applications to avoid a recurrence;
    • set times for handling applications so applicants know what to expect; and
    • publish updated information on its website.
  3. The Council should take the action in paragraph 6 as quickly as possible and in any event within one month. It should report to the Ombudsman in three months on the result or progress with the action in paragraph 7.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we are satisfied the Council has agreed to take action which provides a suitable remedy for Mr B, and improves the service for others.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page