Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of, and decision to refuse, his application for a Disabled Person’s Freedom Pass. 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 Disabled Person’s Freedom Pass. He also complains the Council did not properly assess the nature of his disability which is largely stamina based.

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))
3. 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

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. Mr X applied for a Disabled Person’s Freedom Pass. His application did not meet the automatic eligibility criteria, and so the Council considered it under one of the disabled persons categories set out in the Department for Transport (DfT) guidance. It was considered under the category ‘has a disability or have suffered an injury that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to walk.’
7. The Council refused Mr X’s application. It explained Mr X had not shown he met the relevant criteria for the issuing of a pass and it explained its reasons. In making its decision it considered the information and evidence Mr X provided in support of his application. He was also assessed in person by an Expert Assessor.
8. Mr X requested a review of the decision. The Council considered the additional information Mr X provided but maintained the decision to refuse the application and explained its reasons.
9. Mr X complained to the Council that his application was not properly assessed. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It said his application had been assessed by suitably qualified Expert Assessors in line with the relevant DfT guidance. They did not find he met the criteria for a pass. It said it also considered all the evidence Mr X provided in support of his application including current evidence of diagnosis, prognosis, medication and treatment in reaching its decision.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. It considered and decided Mr X’s application against the relevant eligibility criteria; considered the information and evidence Mr X provided and carried out in person assessments via Expert Assessors. It decided Mr X did not meet the criteria for a pass and it clearly explained its reasons. It is a decision it is entitled to make.
11. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes it followed to make its decision. If, as here, we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even though Mr X disagrees with it.

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