Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a disabled person’s bus pass. This is because an investigation would not add to the Council’s response or achieve a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council wrongly rejected an application for a bus pass for her disabled son. Ms X complained to the Council and the Council upheld her complaint. It then issued a bus pass, but it was delayed.

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 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X said she applied for a bus pass for her disabled son in October 2024, but the Council wrongly rejected the application because it said the evidence she provided was out of date. Ms X complained to the Council and submitted a second application with the documents it asked for.
7. The application was approved and a bus pass was provided. Ms X says the Council took too long to send the bus pass. There was also a further delay as the pass was sent to the wrong address. She says the delay meant her son was unable to travel freely and was socially isolated. Ms X says she was paying for her son’s travel and therefore incurred financial costs. Ms X has also raised concerns about the information the Council requests to support disabled person’s bus pass applications. She says its requirement for a personal independence payment (PIP) award letter dated within the last 12 months has no legal basis and creates a barrier for disabled applicants.
8. The Council accepted its requirement for a PIP letter dated within 12 months caused unnecessary delay and confusion. The Council apologised to Ms X and paid a goodwill gesture of £75. It said it would revise its internal guidance and that staff would receive refresher training. It said it will look to improve its online portal.
9. I am satisfied with the Council’s response and proposed actions. I consider it unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response.
10. Ms X says the bus pass received is only valid for a short period. However, she can make an application to the Council to renew the pass once it has expired.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation would not add to the Council’s response or achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman