Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council ignored a letter from his social worker and threatened to cancel his Freedom Pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council ignored a letter from his social worker which explained why he still needed a Freedom Pass and threatened to cancel his pass.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council about the matter set out in paragraph one, above.
6. The Council contacted Mr X in late 2024 to complete a Disabled Person’s Freedom Pass review. The Council reviews passholders regularly to check their continuing eligibility and that the passholder still lives in the Council’s area. As Mr X’s pass was issued in 2019 it said it was due for review. It explained the review process to Mr X in its correspondence and the information he needed to provide to show his continued eligibility. It also corresponded with Mr X’s social worker on the matter.
7. Mr X provided some supporting information over several months but the Council explained this was not sufficient to show his continued eligibility for the pass. Mr X’s social worker also provided a letter in support of his application. The Council explained this did not show Mr X met the eligibility criteria and it provided the social worker with further information on the type of information required.
8. The Council later closed Mr X’s review due to insufficient evidence to complete it. It provided Mr X’s social worker with further information on the eligibility criteria and about appealing the decision.
9. The social worker told the Council Mr X wanted to submit an appeal. The Council confirmed the pass would remain active pending the appeal outcome.
10. In response to our initial enquiries, the Council told us Mr X’s eligibility has been reassessed and he has been approved for a Freedom 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. I can see from the correspondence provided that it acted on and responded to correspondence from Mr X and his social worker during this process. It provided relevant information about the review process; why it was being carried out and the information and evidence Mr X needed to provide in order to show his continued eligibility for the pass. It also provided relevant information on appealing the decision and ensured the pass remained in place until this process was completed.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman