Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about renewing a bus pass for an older person. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the way the Council dealt with his bus pass renewal in 2021. He says older people have been discriminated against because the Council renewed the disabled passes automatically. Mr X wants £25 in compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X’s aged-based bus pass expired on 31 March 2021. He complained to the Council that it was not automatically renewed. He said he incurred travel costs because a bus driver would not accept his expired pass. Mr X could not drive at this time following surgery.
5. Mr X renewed his pass on 12 April 2021. He says he was told nothing could be done about the charge he incurred.
6. The Council explained that due to the pandemic it had to make new arrangements for the renewal of the 14,000 passes which expired at the end of March 2021. It said that in 2016, when it did an automatic bulk renewal, thousands of passes were wrongly issued so the Council decided this was not an effective method of renewal. Instead it arranged on-line renewal with telephone provision for people without internet access. It also arranged for bus operators to accept expired passes until the end of August. The Council advertised the new arrangements via a range of mediums including the local press, newsletters, its website, at bus stops and on buses. The Council apologised for Mr X’s expired pass being rejected and invited him to send his tickets so it could issue a refund. The Council explained that it renewed the disabled passes automatically to avoid vulnerable people having to provide proof of eligibility which could potentially put them at risk and put an extra burden on the health service during the pandemic.
7. The Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaint were delayed and he did not receive the final reply until February. The Council apologised for the delay.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. The Council made alternative renewal arrangements due to the pandemic and it took appropriate steps to publicise the new system. It also explained to Mr X why it had made the change and it ensured the expired passes would work for another five months. It is unfortunate that Mr X was unaware of the change and incurred some costs. But he renewed his pass within a couple of weeks and the costs he incurred do not flow from Council fault.
9. The Council’s response to Mr X was delayed but it has apologised and this does not need an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman