Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data protection as it is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office. Additionally, we would not be able to achieve the outcome that Miss X seeks.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Authority did not process her freedom pass correctly.
2. Miss X said this caused distress and impacted her independence.
3. Miss X wants compensation and assurance that lessons are learned about data handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

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

5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Authority.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The London Councils Transport and Environment Committee (The Authority) manage Freedom Passes on behalf of London Boroughs and the City of London. A Freedom Pass may be issued to London residents who meet required criteria, a pass allows residents to travel in London without cost.
9. Miss X applied to renew her pass in February 2026. She contacted the Authority when she had not received her new pass within the advised timeframe.
10. The Authority investigated and identified it had sent her new pass to an incorrect address. It apologised, issued a replacement pass and provided compensation for time and trouble.
11. Miss X said the amount offered did not reflect the impact of being without a pass for one month. She then raised concerns relating to data protection and asked the Authority to reconsider its offer.
12. When a complaint about data protection is made, we would normally expect the complainant to contact the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). It would be reasonable to expect Miss X to have done so. We will not investigate this part of Miss X’s complaint because the ICO is better placed to consider her complaint about data protection.
13. The Authority provided Miss X with a meaningful apology and increased its level of compensation. Miss X said the increased offer did not reflect the impact of being without a pass.
14. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The Authority apologised to Miss X for the delay in her receiving her pass, and offered an appropriate goodwill payment as a remedy for her being without a pass.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is a better body placed to consider her complaint, and we could not achieve the outcome she seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman