Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about public transport because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained the Council refused her renewal application for a freedom bus pass and that there is insufficient guidance about what evidence is needed.
2. Mrs Y says this now means she is isolated at home without the bus pass.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

5. I considered information Mrs Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs Y applied for a renewal of her freedom bus pass. As part of her application, she provided evidence of the level of Disability Living Allowance she was receiving and told the Council she had epilepsy and consequently, she was unable to drive.
7. The Council refused her application, explaining in its decision letter its reasons; that it did not have medical evidence to confirm her diagnosis; or evidence to confirm either from the DVLA or a medical professional that she was medically unfit to drive. It said it was therefore declining the application.
8. Mrs Y appealed the decision to the Council and provided the front page of her doctor’s medical notes, which confirmed she had epilepsy, but did not evidence any medication she was taking or that she was medically unfit to drive, either in the profession of her doctor or from DVLA records.
9. Consequently, the Council refused her appeal. It commented that while Mrs Y had provided information from the DVLA’s website about driving and epilepsy, this was not specific to Mrs Y, and therefore could not be used as evidence of her being medically unfit to drive. It also said it would have expected to see medical evidence such as clinical letters from a consultant from an annual check, but such evidence had not been supplied.
10. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. In this case, the Council considered the application against the criteria set in its policy and form. It found that, based on the evidence provided, it could not approve Mrs Y’s application. As it made the decision using relevant criteria and with reference to the evidence supplied, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
11. Mrs Y has also complained about a lack of guidance in what evidence is needed to accompany the application to prove eligibility. As part of the form to apply for the freedom bus pass, it includes a tick box, which in this case was ticked by Mrs Y, to say “I provide a letter from the…DVLA…confirming that I have…[had] an application for [a driving license] refused.” It then continues to provide an alternative tick box in which it says that an applicant can “provide a letter from my GP or consultant…advising why, in their opinion, my condition meets the criteria for refusal of a license”.
12. As the Council has therefore specified in the application form, as well as later in the decision letter, the evidence it requires to meet the criteria for a freedom bus pass, there is not enough evidence of fault in the guidance it has provided on evidence accompanying the application to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman