Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s treatment of him as an autistic person with regard to its employment service and support from its Autism Team. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council has failed to accept and implement his request for reasonable adjustments. He says he was told he had been excluded from the Kent Supported Employment service because he turned down a job offer and the Autism Team closed his case leaving him with no support currently in place.

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’. 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, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B. I gave him the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B received a late diagnosis of autism. Between 2016 and 2018 the Council’s Autism Team provided support to him although Mr B disputes the adequacy of the support given. The Council says it closed his case in 2018 when two elements of support he had identified were met. The first element related to a health issue and the second to a referral being made to the Kent Supported Employment (KSE) service. This is a service delivered by the Council to help those with a disability or disadvantage to find work experience and paid work.
6. In January 2019 the Council’s Autism Team referred Mr B to KSE. This led to the possibility of paid work for Mr B but matters did not progress to this point. In September the service wrote to him that, following an earlier phone conversation with him, it had closed the referral. It set out the support KSE had provided but noted that in several conversations he had said he did not consider the service was able to meet his needs because it did not understand his personal requirements around his autism diagnosis. It also noted that this had happened within two different time frames and with two different support officers. KSE confirmed it respected his decision and that as a result it felt it could not offer him an appropriate service for his needs.
7. Mr B submitted a formal complaint about these matters which the Council addressed. It confirmed that KSE had not closed his case because he had turned down a job role. It noted Mr B felt that KSE did not have sufficient knowledge of autism and commented that the service was always willing to update its knowledge and that it had worked closely with its Autism Team and undergone joint training sessions. The Council advised that there were leads within the teams with both personal and professional knowledge of autism and that two new national frameworks relating to autism would enhance knowledge and understanding.
8. The Council explained it had closed his case with the Autism Team in 2018 because it had achieved the two objectives he had requested. However, it confirmed that if he felt his needs had changed the Autism Team would consider a self-referral for a new assessment and gave details about how to do this.

Assessment

9. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate, and the restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to past issues covered by Mr B’s complaint. It is too late to investigate them and, while I note Mr B disagrees, I see no grounds which warrant exercising discretion to do so now.
10. It is unfortunate that Mr B felt KSE was unable to support him appropriately and did not make sufficient reasonable adjustments for him. However, an investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
11. Mr B says KSE told him on the telephone that his refusal of the job had led to the service closing his case. The KSE note of this call says it was this refusal along with the fact that he had taken this action with no consultation or communication which led to the decision that KSE was not in a position to continue working with him. KSE also took into account that Mr B had said during telephone calls that he did not think the service could meet his needs.
12. Mr B has referred to an issue concerning the proposed use of cash payments for the job he was looking at. While I note he may have found the Council’s comments on it to have been inadequate, there are insufficient grounds to warrant further consideration of the matter by the Ombudsman.
13. Mr B has also referred to a decision from the Information Commissioner which concluded the Council had breached the FOI Act by failing to respond his request for information within the 20-day time limit. He says this failing shows that, on the balance of probability, it discriminated against him and other autistic service users. However, as he anticipated, I do not view these matters to be related. With regards to any on-going support, it is open to Mr B to self-refer himself to the Autism Team for an assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman