The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s experience applying to the Council for a concessionary travel pass. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to provide a different outcome.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the criteria set by the Council to receive a concessionary travel pass, the costs he incurred sending the Council the required documents and the conduct of the staff he encountered during the process.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council after he applied for a concessionary travel pass. He said the documents required were excessive and he incurred a significant financial loss in sending them. He also complained about the staff conduct he encountered during the process. Mr X asked the Council to reimburse him for the money spent to send the documents and the stress he experienced as a result.
The Council explained the criteria was set in accordance with recommendations made by the department for transport. The Council did not agree to provide a financial award but apologised for the staff conduct Mr X experienced and explained that staff had recently encountered shortages which may have affected the service he received. The Council advised it would address this.
Mr X wants us to find the Council at fault and wishes for a refund of the costs he incurred. The evidence shows the Council has investigated Mr X’s concerns and provided him with reasonable and thorough explanations for the criteria necessary to successfully apply for the concessionary pass and for why it will not reimburse him. The Ombudsman would not look to change or criticise this criteria; this is not our role. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s application of its policy or response to Mr X’s application, therefore a financial award is not applicable.
It is unfortunate Mr X felt the staff he dealt with did not manage his concerns in line with his expectations.The evidence shows the Council has apologised for this aspect of his complaint and provided him with a reasonable action for what it is going to do to address any issues. This is in line with what we would expect. Further, the personal injustice Mr X has sustained due to this part of the complaint is not significant enough to warrant investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman