Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a disabled person’s freedom pass. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council refused her application for a disabled person’s freedom travel pass. She said it did not carry out a fair assessment of her mobility.
2. Miss X said this caused distress and a significant impact on her ability to travel.

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 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. Miss X applied for a disabled person’s freedom pass in September 2025. Miss X did not meet the automatic eligibility criteria and applied under one of the disabled person categories, set out in the published Department for Transport guidance. Specifically, under the category ‘People who have a disability, or have suffered an injury, which has left them with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to walk’.
8. The Council referred Miss X for a desk-based independent medical assessment. The assessor said Miss X was not eligible for the pass because she had not provided any medical evidence. The Council therefore refused the application.
9. Miss X appealed this decision and provided medical evidence, including a letter from her GP.
10. The Council arranged for an in-person independent medical assessment. The assessor observed Miss X’s ability to walk. The assessor decided Miss X did not meet the threshold required for a disabled person’s freedom pass and therefore the Council refused the appeal.
11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It has considered Miss X’s application in line with the published eligibility criteria, including referring her for an independent medical assessment. It decided the available evidence was not sufficient to show she 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 Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman