Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the problems the complainant had renewing her disabled persons freedom pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council asked for information she could not provide and refused to ask for it from the authorities. Ms X did not get a new pass before the old one expired.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and emails exchanges. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X had a freedom pass based on the qualifying condition that she is ineligible for a driving licence for medical reasons. Her pass was due to expire on 31 March 2022.
5. The Council wrote to Ms X in November to say it needed to do a review to see if she was still eligible. It asked her to provide information by 5 January. On 20 December Ms X said her condition was no better than when she had first applied and she had nothing to submit. She said the Council should contact her GP.
6. On 2 February the Council repeated that it needed evidence to renew the pass. It said she needed to provide recent medical evidence, proof of address and ID, and a letter from DVLA confirming she is not allowed to drive. Ms X said she could not provide the information because it is personal. She asked the Council to contact other organisations to get the proof. The Council repeated she needed to provide the supporting evidence and it extended the deadline. It said that if she did not provide the evidence then the pass might not be renewed.
7. In response to her complaint the Council said it was Ms X’s responsibility to provide the evidence to show she still qualifies for a pass. It accepted there had been a delay by the Council in responding to her initial enquiry but also said that Ms X said she was unable to provide any evidence.
8. Ms X did not provide the supporting medical evidence. The Council, with consent, obtained evidence Ms X had sent to the housing team. The Council processed the application in April and told Ms X it may take 15 days for her to receive the pass.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council followed the correct process and the delay in Ms X receiving the new badge was primarily caused by Ms X feeling she was unable to provide the evidence. Ms X denies this and says she could not provide evidence from her GP and she made it clear the Council needed to contact the GP. However, it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the supporting evidence and, even though there was an initial delay by the Council, the subsequent delay was caused by Ms X not providing the evidence. And, even though Ms X says her GP wanted direct contact from the Council, it was still for Ms X to provide the other evidence. I recognise Ms X says the delay in receiving the new pass was due to Council fault but, ultimately, it is for the applicant to supply the evidence to show they continue to be eligible for a pass.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman