Summary: We upheld a complaint about Optalis, which provides social care services for a council. Optalis failed to make reasonable adjustments for Ms X and failed to provide a service in line with the accessible information standard. This caused Ms X avoidable distress. The council will apologise, make Ms X a symbolic payment and ensure Optalis reviews its procedures.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained Optalis, a company owned by Wokingham Borough Council (the Council) failed to make reasonable adjustments when she raised concerns in 2021.
2. Ms X said this caused her anxiety and distress and meant she did not have appropriate support to gain employment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. Ms X received support from Optalis for several years. She complained to us about Optalis in February 2022. So events before February 2021 are late complaints. I have investigated from December 2020.
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). Optalis provides services for the Council. We can investigate it.
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered Ms X’s complaint and Optalis’s responses. I also considered documents in this draft statement.
9. Ms X, the Council and Optalis had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

10. Under the Equality Act 2010, public sector organisations like councils must make changes in their services to ensure they are accessible to people with disabilities. These changes are called ‘reasonable adjustments’.
11. The accessible information standard applies to organisations which deliver NHS and adult social care services. It aims to ensure disabled people can get information in a way they can access and understand and receive any communication support they need from health and care services. The standard also tells organisations how to ensure people with communication needs can get support from a communication professional about changing working practices. The law says organisations providing health and social care must follow the standard. Organisations must:
• Ask people about their communication needs
• Record those needs clearly and in a set way
• Highlight the person’s file so it is clear they have communication needs
• Take steps to ensure people receive information which they can access and understand and get communication support if they need it.

Key facts

12. Ms X has autism and dyspraxia (a condition affecting co-ordination). She gets funding for care and support from the Council, some of which she used to fund an Employment Coach (EC) from Optalis’s Supported Employment Service (SES). I have summarised the main contacts between the SES and Ms X below.
13. In December 2020, the EC helped Ms X with her CV and with signing up for an agency.
14. In January 2021, the EC and Ms X’s social worker exchanged emails. The social worker confirmed Ms X’s budget following a review of her care and support plan. The EC continued to help Ms X with editing her CV and they exchanged several drafts. Ms X raised concerns about her social care assessment not accurately describing her needs in line with a report about her dyspraxia. There is a copy of the dyspraxia report within SES’s files.
15. The dyspraxia report set out recommendations for the support Ms X needed to look for work. These included:
1. For staff to read internet resources about her conditions
2. A need for support to complete and understand paperwork to apply for jobs, job searches, understand tax coders wage slips, pensions and benefits at work and the contract
3. A need for staff to be clear and direct when communicating with Ms X and for there to be a quiet environment
4. A consistent job consultant
5. Clear targets
6. Continued additional support from her job coach
7. A digital recorder to record meetings
8. Information to be given to her verbally and then written down
9. To develop clear process to deal with problems
10. Regular one to one meetings
11. Reinforce information with underlining, bold and highlight to draw attention to key points.
16. The dyspraxia report contained other recommendations for short, medium and long-term job roles through an agency and for support at work. It also had recommendations for colleges, examiners and some personal recommendations for Ms X.
17. In February, Ms X emailed the EC copies of a speech and language therapy (SALT) report and a psychology report (these were some years old, but Ms X considered them relevant). She said Optalis had overlooked her communication needs. She asked Optalis to read the reports and see what additional support could be put in place.
18. Ms X emailed Optalis saying she wanted to complain about SES only partly meeting her needs. She repeated that she needed extra support time because of her communication needs and referred to the dyspraxia and SALT reports. She asked for an OT with a specialism in dyspraxia to assess her to say what difficulties she may have when she started work.
19. Ms X also said she wanted to leave the SES service at the end of March and make other arrangements with a different organisation to provide employment support.
20. Ms X met with Optalis’s staff and other professionals supporting her in March. She prepared a note before the meeting saying she did not get enough time for employment support, an hour a week was not enough, and the EC had said she needed more time to go through things like her emails and her CV. Ms X said she anticipated needing more support time when completing application forms and doing training. She asked if her ‘retention’ time could be used as part of her regular weekly time. She also asked if an occupational therapist could assess her and put a plan in place for the SES to follow. Optalis’s file notes record Ms X said in the meeting, that reasonable adjustments had not been implemented in line with the dyspraxia report. Attendees discussed the dyspraxia report and the SES team leader noted the adjustments recommended in the report could be met through work with the SES and with the future employer. Ms X decided to leave Optalis after the meeting and make other arrangements for employment support. The records indicate she withdrew her complaint.
21. In March, the EC continued to support Ms X with applications, identifying vacancies with agencies and with further changes to her CV.
22. The SES team leader emailed Ms X setting out what the SES could provide including: support with writing applications, CV, interview techniques, discussing diagnosis with employer, support with work training, liaising with employers and attending meetings.
23. In April, the EC supported Ms X with submitting a job application including the cover letter and her CV.
24. In May, Ms X spoke to her social worker and said she wanted to use employment support from other organisations. Optalis SES ended their involvement with Ms X.
25. In October 2021, Ms X wrote to Optalis complaining about the service. A manager replied with an apology. The letter went on to say:
• The SES was a member of two disability organisations, trade unions and ACAS
• The team had regular sessions around the Equality Act and reasonable adjustments
• The SES team had training about autism.
26. A second complaint response from one of Optalis’s directors said a manager had offered Ms X a meeting with her advocate to discuss her complaint, but she had refused and so the complaint was now closed.

Findings

27. Optalis had a duty to act in line with the Equality Act 2010, in particular to make reasonable adjustments to its service to Ms X. I accept that as a service directed at supporting adults with disabilities, its policies and practices likely meet the general requirements of the Equality Act and that its staff had general training around autism and the Equality Act.
28. My investigation focusses on whether Optalis provided Ms X with a service that met its duty to make reasonable adjustments to meet her specific needs around communication. Optalis should have considered the dyspraxia report carefully to see whether any specific changes needed to be made to the support it was providing Ms X. My view is Optalis did not consider whether it needed to follow some of the practices recommended in the report:
• Provide Ms X with a digital recorder (or ask the Council to)
• Agree a clear process with Ms X to deal with problems (and record this on her file)
• Agree clear targets with her
• Ensure any written information staff gave her was reinforced with underlining, bold and highlighting.
29. The service to Ms X did not meet the accessible information standard and this was fault because the records do not show Optalis recorded Ms X’s individual needs around communication in a clear and set way, or highlighted her communication needs in its files or took steps to ensure she could understand and access information.
30. Optalis’s responses to Ms X’s complaint were also poor because they did not identify any fault in its service. The second response was also particularly poor and was a missed opportunity for a senior manager to review the complaint and identify if any changes needed to be made to services.
31. Optalis’s failings caused Ms X avoidable anxiety and distress.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with Optalis, I have made recommendations to the Council.
33. The Council will:
1. Apologise for the fault I have identified and pay Ms X £500 to recognise the impact on her
2. Review Optalis’s policies and procedures to ensure:
1. They meet the requirements of the accessible information standard described in paragraph 11.
2. Staff consider specialist communication reports about clients and assess whether any changes to the way staff communicate and provide a service need to be made when dealing with people with neurodevelopmental conditions.
3. Report back to us with the outcome of the review at (b), including a summary of any changes.
4. Ensure Optalis’s staff receive training in the accessible information standard.
34. The Council should take the actions in 33(a) within one month of my final decision and those in (b) and (c) within three months.

Back to top

Final decision

35. We upheld a complaint about Optalis, which provides social care services for a council. Optalis failed to make reasonable adjustments for Ms X and failed to provide a service in line with the accessible information standard. This caused Ms X avoidable distress. The council will apologise, make Ms X a symbolic payment and ensure Optalis reviews its procedures.
36. I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman