Summary: Mx B complained that the Council had failed to take account of its Public Sector Equality Duty in deciding not to extend funding for a male Independent Domestic Violence Adviser. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mx B complained that North Somerset Council (the Council) failed to take account of its Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in reaching the decision to stop funding a dedicated male Independent Domestic Violence Adviser (IDVA). This has caused Mx B distress at the loss of a male support worker.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mx B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mx B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Public sector equality duty
   The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic (including sex) and those who do not; and
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

7. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

Domestic Abuse Act 2021

8. Part 4 of this act contains the statutory duties placed on local authorities to provide safe specialist accommodation. There is no requirement to provide specific male IDVA support.

What happened

9. In 2024 the Government provided the Council with some funding for a limited period of 12 months to fulfil its duties under Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The organisation commissioned by the Council to provide specialist support services originally proposed to employ a generic IDVA, but recruitment was unsuccessful. So, the Council developed a targeted pilot for a male community IDVA role as an innovative approach to address perceived need and test service demand.
10. The post was approved as part of a wider funding decision by the Domestic Abuse Strategic Partnership Board (DASP). This process incorporated a general Equality Impact Assessment which considered the cumulative impact of funding decisions across domestic abuse services, including impacts on individuals with protected characteristics.
11. Mx B was supported by the new male IDVA, during the pilot period.
12. Towards the end of the 12 months the Council decided not to extend the funding for this post. The decision was made taking into account the following:
• A local needs analysis.
• Consultation and feedback for service users including those within male refuge provision: This included visits by the Domestic Ause Lead to each safehouse in the area including the safehouse where Mx B resided. None of the feedback gathered during these visits showed a preference for a specific male worker. Mx B recalls a visit but does not consider he was asked a direct question about the male IDVA.
• Monitoring data demonstrating a low level of uptake among male survivors during the pilot: The organisation providing the service said that the majority of male survivors preferred to work with a female IDVA. As a result, the male IDVA had held a much lower caseload (typically 2 to 5 clients at any one time, compared to female support workers who carried an average caseload of 25 to 30). The organisation said that since the post had come to an end only one person had requested a male worker.
• Findings from the North Somerset Domestic Abuse Needs Assessment and Survivor Survey Report: this contained detailed data on the incidence of domestic abuse among a range of groups with protected characteristics including men. It said the majority of referrals were for women with 6.1% being for men. Although the figure was higher in one hospital environment with its own dedicated IDVA worker. Of the 12 survivors who completed the survey, all were women.
13. It said in the context of finite resources for domestic abuse services, DASP has to prioritise investment where there is a clear and evidenced need, alongside demonstrable impact. Equality considerations are therefore integrated within the overall strategic commissioning process rather than assessed solely through individual decision-specific impact assessments. The Council clarified that the funding was not cut, but as there had been no demonstrable need for a specific male worker from the evidence gathered, that it transferred the funding to the main support service.
14. The Council said Mx B was supported to transition over to the wider IDVA team and continued to received support from that team. He disputes this and says the new worker was female and the support provided was not equivalent and did not meet his needs. It had a significant impact on his health and well-being.
15. Mx B complained in March 2025 about the significant impact the decision was having on his mental health and how much he had benefitted from the male IDVA. The Council explained in its response that funding decisions were driven by the comprehensive needs assessment and survivor feedback, to ensure funding was having the most impact and meeting needs effectively. It said that even in the services with male workers they had to diversify the role to ensure they had enough work and feedback from male survivors did not demonstrate a need for a male specific service. It said Mx B would still receive support from the team to manage the change and to ensure he still received the same level of support.
16. Mx B remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to stage two in early April 2025. The Council responded in May 2025 upholding its decision that the consultation and assessments had not demonstrated sufficient need for the post to justify extending the funding.
17. Mx B then pursued his complaint and contacted his MP but the Council did not respond. He complained to us. The Council’s website states that it has a two-stage complaints procedure. The third stage is to complain to us.

Findings

18. I understand how distressing it must have been for Mx B to lose support from the male IDVA which he clearly valued and benefitted from. However, it is for the Council to decide how it uses funding for specific service. In this case it was not considering whether to cut funding but whether to continue to extend funding for a pilot post of a male IDVA. It is clear from the documents provided that the evidence did not support a need for the service and that the worker had experienced a very low caseload compared to support workers dealing with female survivors. So, I understand the main rationale for the decision as the Council has a duty to spend public money efficiently.
19. However, I also understand the need for the Council to specifically consider the decision in terms of the Equality Act and the PSED. Although the Council did not specifically mention this duty within its complaint response, I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the impact on people with protected characteristics was fully considered. The quantitative data contains details of the number of male domestic abuse referrals compared to female and notes that where there was an IDVA in a hospital the number of male referral was higher than the average. However, that was not due to the sex of the IDVA but rather their location. The qualitative data from survivor feedback and consultation visits shows that there was no expressed preference for a male worker (during the consultation) and in about two-thirds of cases male survivors preferred a female worker. The Council has explained that Mx B has continued to receive services from an IDVA and if a male-worker request were received it has avenues it would pursue.
20. I understand Mx B was unhappy with the alternatives and that he had requested a male-only worker. I fully appreciate the loss of the male-worker was detrimental to him. But on the evidence provided I have not found fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Decision

21. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman