Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s refusal to replace a lost annual travel pass. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Authority refused to replace his lost annual travel pass (the pass) or consider any alternative resolutions he suggested. Mr X says he has experienced significant stress as well as financial loss through having to pay for the pass and travel costs he incurred whilst he was not able to use it. Mr X says he has health problems that make travelling more difficult and the loss of his pass has made accessing public transport more difficult and uncertain, affecting his ability to travel reliably.

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 Authority.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X lost the pass and asked the Authority to replace it. The Authority’s policy says it will only provide one replacement pass in a five-year period. The Authority refused to replace the pass because it had provided Mr X with a replacement, for a different pass he lost, within the previous five years.
6. Mr X says the Authority did not tell him about its rule on replacing passes when he bought the pass. However, the documents show that when he applied to replace the previous lost pass he signed to agree to the policy on replacements. As Mr X knew about the rule the first time he had a replacement, we would be unlikely to find the Authority at fault for abiding by its rules and refusing to issue Mr X with another replacement pass within a five-year period.
7. Mr X feels the Authority’s rule about the limit on replacement passes should be more prominently displayed. He says he was unaware of the limit when he first bought his pass. However, given annual passes provide a significant discount on travel costs, on balance it seems unlikely that being told about the limit on the number of replacement passes would deter most people’s decision to purchase one. Therefore, there is not good enough reason for us to investigate whether the Authority was at fault on this point.
8. Mr X complains the Authority refused to consider discretionary options such as refunding the lost portion of the pass or transferring it to someone else. However, the Authority’s terms and conditions are clear that neither of these options apply. Nothing in the Authority’s terms and conditions suggest it has discretion to provide more than one replacement pass within a five-year period. We would therefore be unlikely to find the Authority, at fault for declining to agree to any of Mr X’s alternative suggestions. It is not for us to say the Authority should have different contractual terms and conditions.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman