Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to make reasonable adjustments in its communications with her and provided a poor level of service, causing distress. The Ombudsman finds the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments in its communications with Ms X. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology, makes a payment and takes action.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to make reasonable adjustments, causing her pain and distress. She is also unhappy with the Council’s adult social care provision, which has put her to stress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. If we are satisfied with a council’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

6. I spoke to Ms X and I reviewed documents provided by Ms X and the Council. I gave Ms X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and I considered the comments provided.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Equality Act 2010 says public bodies should take reasonable steps to:
• avoid substantial disadvantage where a provision, criterion or practice puts disabled persons at a substantial disadvantage.
• avoid substantial disadvantage, where a physical feature puts disabled persons at a substantial disadvantage.
• provide an auxiliary aid where without one, disabled persons would be put at a substantial disadvantage.
8. An auxillary aid can include making information available in an accessible format.
9. Anything more than minor or trivial is a substantial disadvantage.
10. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is “anticipatory”. This means a public body must think in advance (and on an ongoing basis) about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.
11. In considering whether an adjustment is reasonable a public body can consider:
• how practicable the changes are
• if the change would overcome the disadvantage experienced
• the size of the organisation
• how much money and resources are available
• the cost of making the changes
• if any changes have already been made.

What happened

Reasonable adjustments

12. Ms X needs written information on a blue background in a large size font or she cannot read it within a reasonable time. To adjust documents herself is also difficult, causes her pain and puts her to time and trouble.
13. In August 2018 the Ombudsman considered a complaint by Ms X. The Ombudsman found the Council’s adult social care department had sent Ms X documents, including an annual survey, without making the necessary reasonable adjustments. The Council agreed to address this by saving an adjusted document template for contacts with Ms X.
14. In February 2019 Ms X again received an inaccessible survey from the Council. She has also received inaccessible emails from other Council departments.
15. In response to enquiries the Council accepts it sent Ms X a survey in a standard format. It explains the survey is sent to 400 random service users. It gives basic contact details to an external printer and it cannot tailor content for individual needs. However, the cover letter to the survey explains how people can ask for it in a different format. The Council says it has a note on its adult social care system to ensure staff adjust other documents for Ms X.

Care

16. Ms X receives a package of care and support from the Council. This includes visits from care agency staff.
17. On 20 October 2018 Ms X complained to the care agency that a carer had prepared food incorrectly, resulting in cross contamination with raw meat. The care agency told Ms X it would find another carer.
18. On 2 November 2018 Ms X complained to the Council. In summary she said:
• The care agency has now said it cannot find another carer and will no longer provide the service;
• On 12 October Council officer A said she was no longer Ms X’s social worker and the Council had given Ms X’s case to a review team. But, on 2 November 2018, the Council told her Council officer A remained her social worker.
• She asked the Council to remove the shopping visit from her care package in August 2017 but this remains.
19. On 21 November 2018 the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. In summary it said:
• It notes she complained about the standard of care provided and she now has a new provider.
• It usually transfers cases from a social worker to a review team. But, if a new issue arises, it will ask the previous social worker to deal with this.
• It apologises for inaccuracies in her care plan. It has now corrected these.
20. Ms X then complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had:
• failed to resolve her complaint about the carer quickly, leaving her without any food for two weeks;
• tried to pass her case on to a review team that did not exist, with the aim of removing her from the service;
• failed to remove the shopping visit from her care package when she asked;
• not acknowledged her complaint to the care agency about a damaged microwave;
• failed to ensure the care provider carried out tasks on the days requested; and
• delayed carrying out a review in July by three weeks. The delay arose because the social worker had tried to find an advocate for her, that she did not want.
21. In response to enquiries the Council explained:
• the care agency had agreed to provide a new carer. Meanwhile the same carer attended and provided food to Ms X. It was unaware Ms X was without food;
• it does have a dedicated review team;
• Ms X asked the Council to remove the shopping visit from her care package on 25 September 2017. It removed this the same day and notified the care agency;
• Ms X complained carers used the wrong products to clean her microwave but there was no evidence the microwave was damaged or needed replacing;
• It changed Ms X’s care package to swap the domestic day with the food preparation day on 15 February 2019 as requested;
• It normally carries out reviews annually but it has reviewed Ms X’s care more often due to the change in providers.
22. The Council has provided a copy of case records that show:
• It actioned Ms X’s request to remove the shopping visit on 25 September 2017.
• Ms X asked for a change to carer tasks in November 2018 which provided for food preparation and domestic tasks on Wednesdays.
• On 2 February 2019 Ms X asked for domestic tasks to take place on Fridays. The Council actioned this on 15 February 2019.

Findings

Reasonable adjustments

23. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. Although Ms X has not complained to the Council about recent failures to make reasonable adjustments, I am satisfied she raised this with the Council previously and it had the opportunity to address this. I therefore do not consider it necessary for Ms X to complete the Council’s complaints process again.
24. The Council accepts it sent Ms X an annual survey in a standard format. I note the Council suggests Ms X could request this document in a different format. However, Ms X would not know do this without reading the document in the first instance. Ms X finds it difficult and time consuming to read unadjusted documents. The alternative is for her to adjust the document herself, which causes her pain. By sending Ms X a document without first adjusting it to meet her needs, the Council places Ms X at a substantial disadvantage compared to other service users who can access the document without difficulty. This amounts to fault and caused Ms X distress. This is compounded because the Ombudsman previously found fault on the same issue. I am mindful that other disabled service users may also be affected.
25. The Council has not commented on Ms X’s complaint that other departments have sent her inaccessible correspondence. The Council refers to a note on its social care system. But this is not shared outside of social care. Ms X has provided evidence that other Council teams, such as environmental health, have sent her correspondence without adjustments. I therefore find the Council at fault. Ms X suffered distress as a result.

Care

26. It is not in dispute that a carer prepared food in an unhygienic manner on one occasion. And the Council engaged a new care agency. I am satisfied with the Council’s action in this regard. I have not seen any evidence Ms X told the Council she had no food to eat or, that she could not eat while the same carer remained. I cannot find the Council caused Ms X injustice where it was unaware of an ongoing problem.
27. The Council explained to Ms X that her social worker transferred her case to another team for review. But, because a new issue arose, Ms X’s case was returned to her social worker. I consider the Council’s explanation is adequate. There is no evidence the Council tried to remove Ms X from its service. I therefore find no evidence of fault or injustice.
28. The Council says it has not seen any evidence showing Ms X’s microwave was damaged. I note Ms X insists it was damaged by a carer but, I have not seen any substantive evidence which prove this. I therefore find there is a lack of evidence of fault causing injustice.
29. Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied the Council removed shopping from Ms X’s care package upon request and notified the care agency. I note the Council did not update Ms X’s care plan until later. However, there is no evidence this caused significant injustice. Ms X says carers remained in her home longer than expected but I cannot say this was a direct consequence of a Council failing, as there may have been other reasons for carers to remain.
30. In view of the Council’s evidence I am satisfied it arranged for domestic tasks to take place on a Friday as Ms X wanted, without undue delay. I therefore find no fault.
31. That it took a few weeks longer than Ms X expected for the Council to arrange a care review does not amount to fault.
32. The Council has not commented on Ms X’s complaint that her social worker tried to engage an advocate without her agreement. However, I consider any fault did not cause significant injustice.

Agreed action

33. To remedy the injustice set out above the Council should take the following actions within one month of the date of my decision:
• provide Ms X with a written apology for its failure to make reasonable adjustments;
• pay Ms X £100 for distress;
• consider what steps it can take to ensure its annual survey is provided in an accessible format for Ms X and others as necessary;
• consider what steps it can take to ensure other departments within the Council do not send Ms X inaccessible documents and;
• inform Ms X and the Ombudsman of the outcome of its considerations and give reasons for its decision.
34. The Council has accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I find the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments in its communications with Ms X. The Council has accepted my recommendations and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman