Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a complainant’s 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. Ms Y complains on behalf of Mr X about the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X a concessionary bus pass. Ms Y believes he qualifies for the pass due to his physical and mental disabilities following injuries suffered during an attack. Ms Y wants his application reconsidered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
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 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 Ms Y 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 on the basis he has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which has a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to walk.
8. The Council carried out a mobility assessment of Mr X and rejected his application on the basis he did not satisfy the eligibility criteria. The Council stated Mr X could walk the required distance and the level of difficulty he showed whilst walking did not meet the required criteria.
9. The Council later carried out a review of its decision at the request of Ms Y. It considered Mr X’s application and medical evidence but did not change its decision Mr X was not eligible for a pass.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. The Council has considered Mr X’s application against the published eligibility criteria, carried out an assessment, considered medical evidence and decided he does not meet eligibility criteria for a pass.
11. 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 provided by Ms Y and Mr X. 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

12. 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