Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Freedom Pass. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, so we cannot question if the decision was right or wrong.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained about the Council’s decision not to issue a Freedom Pass to her child, X.
2. Miss Y said the Council has misinterpreted the medical evidence she provided to it, and that X does meet the criteria. Miss Y said this decision means X cannot enjoy the independence she ought to have.

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 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 Miss Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Transport Act 2000 says concessionary travel is available to passengers over 65 and any passenger a Council decides is disabled. In London, a concessionary travel pass is called a Freedom Pass.
8. Miss Y applied for a Freedom Pass on behalf of X, and provided medical information and X’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
9. The Council decided that X did not meet the criteria and told Miss Y of her right to seek a review of its decision.
10. The Council reviewed its decision, considering more medical evidence that Miss Y filed. The Council said that it had factored in the Department of Transport’s 2013 guidance on assessing eligibility of disabled people for concessionary bus travel.
11. An independent expert assessor carried out the review. The Council upheld its original decision.
12. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was right or wrong. Instead, we look at the processes a council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
13. I have reviewed Miss Y’s appeal as well as the Council’s reply about how it considered the request. The Council’s practice is in line with guidance because it follows the process of first considering relevant state benefits, then registrations and then offers an independent expert assessment.
14. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding not to issue X with a Freedom Pass. There is no fault in how it took the decision, and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint. There was no fault in how the Council made its decision, so we cannot question if the decision was right or wrong

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman