REPORT TO WORCESTERSHIRE CONCESSIONARY FARES GROUP

CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING ELIGIBILITY FOR DISABLED AND COMPANION PASSES

INTRODUCTION:

Guidance is set out in the DFT paper dated February 2008 entitled `Guidance to Local Authorities on Assessing Eligibility of Disabled People in England for Concessionary Bus Travel'

Paragraph 9 of the guidance states that the local authority should determine whether someone is a `disabled person' for the purposes of concessionary travel, but that they `must have regard' to the guidance in reaching a decision.

It is apparent anecdotally that Districts within Worcestershire are routinely interpreting the guidance in different ways, some more rigorously than others. It is therefore likely that an applicant in one area could be awarded a Bus Pass when one in other area with the same circumstances may not.

This proposal aims to move us closer to a single agreed interpretation of the criteria, which will deliver a more consistent service to the customer and also reduce uncertainty among CSAs when faced with a `marginal' case.

`Automatic Eligibility';

Paragraph 17 of the guidance states that `where available, the most robust way of assessing eligibility is likely to be via other relevant state benefits'.

In paragraph 18, it lists two benefits that that it considers `may' denote automatic eligibility for a Bus Pass.

These benefits are:

This group has previously agreed that it interprets `may' as meaning `may or may not' rather than `will'. In practice there is general agreement that anyone of fare paying age in receipt of either or both or the above will be automatically eligible for a Bus Pass.

The guidance states that the award of either benefit must have been for at least 12 months or be expected to be for at least 12 months.

We recommend that we issue the Bus Pass up to the expiry date of the award, rounded up to the next whole year, e.g., if the award letter has 2 years 8 months to run, we issue for 3 years.

If the award letter has less than 12 months to run, but has been issued for longer than 12 months, we would issue for 1 year.

To safeguard against a possibility of misuse if an award is not renewed, we could include in the process a signed declaration that the holder would return the Bus Pass if the award of benefit that lead to its issue was withdrawn.

An alternative would be to agree without exception that the Bus Pass would run exactly to the expiry date of the award.

This could cause difficulty if the renewed award of benefit was delayed for some reason, but could be overcome by the issue of a Bus Pass renewal reminder, say, one month before expiry. In Wychavon, less than 4% of Bus Passes in issue have been issued under the disability criteria.

`Discretionary Eligibility' - the `Seven Categories':

Paragraph 12 states that the disability `should have a substantial effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities'.

Paragraph 25 stresses that the important factor is physical mobility rather than the identity of a medical condition per se.

These criteria are quite subjective and we recommend that we should specify the following as the acceptable forms of evidence in each category.

Registration under a local authority voluntary scheme, or Certificate of Vision Impairment

Audiological report or report from audio specialist - to specify DBHL 70+

Observation of ability to speak/communicate in any language - i.e. language barrier does not qualify

HRMCDLA or WPMA

Statement by educational institution or evidence of existing relationship with Social Services related to disability

Letter of refusal from DVLA or medical evidence supporting the fact that they would be refused if they applied, e.g. epilepsy

Appeals:

Only the evidence specified above would allow a CSA to issue a Disabled Bus Pass.

There is of course a mechanism whereby appeals go to the Bus Pass `specialist' in each authority. We would recommend that the `specialist' should be able to look beyond those criteria in very exceptional circumstances.

To ensure that the criteria above were worth having and sticking to, we would expect the numbers granted on appeal to be very small.

Medical Evidence:

As we know, this is a large area of uncertainty both in respect of Bus Passes and of Blue Badges.

Paragraph 23 of the guidance recommends that local authorities seek independent medical evidence, where there is doubt over eligibility, the cost of which should not be borne by the applicant.

Paragraph 25 goes on to refer specifically to occupational therapists or physiotherapists in the `inability to walk' category.

Because of the cost stipulation, this appears in practice to be restricted to evidence that has already been produced for some other reason. We would recommend that any medical evidence not set out specifically above should only be admissible on appeal to the District `specialist'.

Paragraph 29 mentions the use of an applicant's GP as a last resort. It recommends that the authority should approach the GP direct, with the applicant's consent, and only ask answers to factual questions.

We again recommend that this option should only be available to the `specialist', bearing in mind also that many GPs in this area decline to get involved at all, both in respect of Bus Passes and Blue Badges.

Alternatively, the specialists may wish to agree amongst themselves that they do not wish to approach GPs in any circumstances.

Link With Blue Badges:

Paragraph 21 of the guidance states that `eligibility (for a bus pass) may be considered automatic where a disabled person of fare paying age has been issued with a Blue Badge'.

This group may wish to review regularly whether it feels that the procedures for the issue of Blue Badges are sufficiently robust that possession of a Blue Badge should automatically qualify the holder for a Bus Pass.

In that case, we would recommend that the `Blue Badge qualification' should replace everything within the `Medical Evidence' section above.

Pensioner and Disabled Passes with Companions

We asked each District how they assessed eligibility for Companion passes. The following responses highlight the range of approaches.

Wychavon - adopts a fairly loose definition, could be Carers Allowance (has to be for tokens) but could also be medical evidence, or residence in a Nursing Home, or simply a physical assessment of the applicant's condition.

Wyre Forest - Companion passes not issued by CSA at front desk but passed on for consideration. Based on `evidence of need' plus a feeling that the standard should be a tougher one than for a straightforward disabled pass

Worcester City - the only qualifications are Carers Allowance for a Pensioner companion and, for Disabled passes, HRMCDLA for the disabled person and Higher Rate Care component for the companion.

For use at the front desk CSA level, we favour the tighter Worcester City approach, with the proviso that the Bus Pass `specialist' already referred to could take a wider view in exceptional circumstances.

CONCLUSION:

The practice across the County in this area is inconsistent and, to overcome this, we believe that there is a need for clearer and tighter guidelines as to what our CSAs can do and what they need to pass on for a decision.

We don't think that the numbers will be large and so what we are proposing will not significantly add to the workload of the District `specialists'.

We would welcome an early decision on this so that we could introduce the proposed changes as from 1^st October, the date from which the temporary passes will not longer be valid.

David Hood, Sarah Mansfield and Karen Shakespeare-Jones

28^th August 2008