Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about being denied domestic abuse support. This is because the complaint was late and there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained he was denied domestic abuse support from an organisation commissioned by the Council because he was male, whilst the perpetrator of that abuse was supported. He said this was a breach of the Equality Act 2010, and added to the trauma he suffered as a result of the domestic abuse.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X contacted agency 1, a service commissioned by the Council, in November 2020 for help after suffering domestic abuse. Agency 1 referred him to another service, but that service could not support him because it was at capacity. It gave him contact details for a third service, but Mr X did not pursue this.
9. In its complaint response in March 2021, agency 1 said the approach it had taken was correct. In May 2021, it arranged an appeal panel, to consider the complaint further. The panel said it could not consider complaints about the support given to another person, but it welcomed Mr X’s feedback about the difficulty of accessing its services and agreed to make some changes.
10. In his complaint to the Council, Mr X said he had not been supported because he was male. In its complaint response in November 2023, the Council said agency 1 did support male victims of domestic abuse and said there was no evidence to suggest Mr X was not supported because he was male.
11. In a further response in January 2024, the Council said:
• Mr X had asked for emotional support. Agency 1 was not commissioned to provide this, but had signposted to other services, which was appropriate;
• there was no evidence that agency 1 refused to support him because this would create a conflict of interest as it was also acting for the perpetrator; and
• it was not appropriate for agency 1 to comment on whether a service was provided to someone else for data protection reasons, and it was not possible therefore to use the concept of a “comparator” as Mr X had suggested.
12. Mr X complained to us in January 2024 about events in late 2020. We usually expect complaints to be made within 12 months. Although Mr X communicated with the Council in 2023 and early 2024, it was reasonable for him to complain to us sooner. There is no good reason to investigate now because, given the lapse of time, it is unlikely we would be able to add to the investigations already carried out by agency 1 and the Council.
13. In any event, even if the complaint was not late we would not investigate. It is not our role to decide whether agency 1 or the Council were in breach of the Equality Act 2010. That would be a matter for the courts to determine.
14. It would not amount to fault to refuse to provide support where it is not within the scope of the commissioned service, nor to refuse for capacity reasons where the Council did not have a statutory duty to provide the service. On this basis, there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our further involvement.
15. Therefore, we will not investigate further because the complaint is late, it is unlikely we could add to previous investigations, and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is late, it is unlikely we could add to the previous investigations and there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman