Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a concessionary bus pass for disabled people. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a concessionary bus pass. Mr X says he qualifies for the pass due to his mental and physical disabilities. He paid £220 to obtain medical evidence but the Council said it was not sufficient.

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X applied to the Council for a disabled person’s concessionary bus pass.
8. There are seven categories of disabled person identified as eligible for concessionary bus travel. These are:

1. is blind or partially sighted;
2. is profoundly or severely deaf;
3. is without speech;
4. has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to walk;
5. does not have arms or has long-term loss of the use of both arms;
6. has a learning disability, that is a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind, which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning;
7. would, if he applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, have his application refused pursuant to section 92 of that act (physical fitness) otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol.

9. Mr X applied for a bus pass under category (d), as set out above. He provided several documents in support of his application.
10. The Council refused Mr X’s application. It said this was because the evidence he provided in support of his application did not show he meets the eligibility criteria for issuing of a pass under category (d). It provided Mr X with a link to the relevant guidance which sets out the eligibility criteria. It explained why the information he provided was not sufficient to show he qualifies for a pass.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It has considered Mr X’s application against the published eligibility criteria and decided the evidence Mr X provided was not sufficient to show he meets the eligibility criteria for issuing of 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 wrong. Instead we look at the processes it followed to make its decision. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance and the evidence and information Mr X provided. There is no sign of fault in how it made its decision and so we cannot question whether that decision is right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman