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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has refused to provide him with a free concessionary bus pass and has failed to properly respond to his complaint.
2. Mr Y says he is unable to walk far and is based in the area, for example having a post box there for several years, even if he cruises on his narrowboat outside of the area at times.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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))
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y lives on a narrowboat and has a continuing cruising license. A continuing cruising license allows boat owners to travel within the boat network across a large area. It does not confine a boat to a region, allows travel across long distances and does not require a home mooring.
8. Mr Y says that he cruises solely in the Council’s area and has several links to the area, including a post box and uses the area’s services such as a local GP.
9. The Council’s policy requires an applicant to provide proof of residency and in the case of narrowboats, this would need a person to have a permanent mooring certificate. As Mr Y does not have this, his application was refused as he was unable to provide proof of the council’s area being his sole or principal residence.
10. 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.
11. As the Council considered Mr Y’s application, the details within it and the evidence he had provided, alongside its policy before reaching its decision to refuse the application, it has properly considered his request for a bus pass. As there is no fault in the decision-making process, there is not enough evidence of fault o justify investigating this complaint. We will not investigate.
12. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman