Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it considered Ms X’s reasonable adjustments or how it carried out a safeguarding enquiry into her concerns of domestic abuse.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to communicate with her using agreed reasonable adjustments and failed to respond to her safeguarding request.
2. She says this prevented her from receiving safeguarding support, causing uncertainty and distress.
3. Ms X wants financial recognition of the injustice caused and for processes to be put in place to prevent recurrence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms X 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

Relevant Law and Guidance

The Equality Act and reasonable adjustments

9. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
10. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
11. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to anybody which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
12. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.

Safeguarding

13. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC)

14. A MARAC is a meeting where agencies share information on high-risk domestic abuse cases. The meetings can include representatives from the police, health, child protection, housing, probation and other relevant specialists. The MARAC provides a plan to safeguard the adult victim.

Seeking evidence about domestic abuse

15. The Homelessness Code of Guidance (the Code) says councils should obtain an account of the domestic abuse and support the victim to outline their experience. However, it says if the applicant’s experience has been documented already by a domestic abuse service – where possible – councils should utilise existing statements to avoid asking the victim to re-live their experience unnecessarily. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)

Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE)

16. The SCIS guidance 2025, says:
• In almost every safeguarding enquiry it is likely to be necessary to physically see and talk to the adult to make decisions;
• Good safeguarding practice begins with talking to the adult who there is concern about. If there are significant difficulties the Council must arrange for an independent advocate for the adult.

The Council’s adult safeguarding policy

17. The policy says if an officer is experiencing resistance to being involved in a safeguarding process, they should:
• Set out why the person is being asked and the importance of their contribution;
• Be flexible with dates and times where safe to do so;
• Ensure well planned safeguarding meetings that allow partners to share information, risk assess and agree actions.

What happened

18. In 2025 the Council received safeguarding referrals from Ms X’s GP and psychiatrist. They said Ms X,
• had been unable to get Council housing and her current accommodation placed her at risk of verbal and physical abuse; and
• a previous safeguarding referral had seen her signposted to services which she had not accessed and she did not feel were helpful.
19. A social worker contacted Ms X to make initial enquiries and provide advice. In her responses Ms X said:
• all communication was to be via email to ensure a time-stamped, written record of discussions. This was due to previous failings by the Council to communicate appropriately;
• she wanted confirmation her case was being treated as a formal safeguarding enquiry;
• the Council’s suggestion to contact the Police was not an option as she lived with the alleged abuser;
• she had already contacted the homeless unit, but a call had not been made at the scheduled time and therefore she had not answered.
• referrals to domestic abuse support agencies was repeating a previous approach and was not safe or sustainable;
• she was unsure how helpful a housing support worker would be; and
• before confirming any availability for an appointment, she needed to know who she would be meeting and the specific support that would be provided.
20. The Council concluded that Ms X was a vulnerable adult with care and support needs who was unable to protect herself from abuse and neglect. It said a safeguarding enquiry was needed under Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 for a long-term protection plan.
21. A social worker requested a face-to-face meeting with Ms X. They said they were committed to making reasonable adjustments but wanted to better understand her needs and build a strong relationship, which in some cases was better done in person or over the phone.
22. Ms X complained to the Council and repeated the need for email communication only.
23. The Council made enquiries with supporting services, held multi-agency adult safeguarding and professionals’ meetings which established:
• Ms X communicated with other services including her GP in person and over the phone;
• a joint visit would be proposed in a trusted location, such as the doctors, local café or other suitable location;
• Ms X was independent and was able to use public transport;
• a referral to independent housing was to be made if Ms X was willing to engage; and
• Ms X would be provided with information and details about domestic violence support groups, including one that had previously tried to work with her.
24. Ms X continued to request email contact only and said she was unwilling to meet with the Council’s safeguarding team. She requested the reason for refusing her request for email communication only.
25. The Council said it needed to verify identity and understand her situation to develop a protection plan. It asked Ms X to provide her current address, whether she was living with the abuser, details of incidents, any witnesses and how she was keeping safe.
26. Ms X replied and said the Council had failed to confirm her request for reasonable adjustments and she would not be corresponding further with Adult Social Care.
27. A few months later the Council closed the safeguarding enquiry, it concluded:
• It was unable to progress the enquiry due to Ms X only being willing to communicate through email. She continued to work with and meet other professionals in person and over the phone;
• Ms X had been offered flexible meeting options, an advocate, and a commitment to use only email after an initial meeting, however these had been refused;
• Ms X had received advice to contact relevant agencies such as the Police, domestic abuse support organisations and Council housing support, with a referral back to adult social care in the future if she consented; and
• it was progressing the enquiry to a safeguarding protection plan review. Ms X’s assigned social worker would continue to try and build a rapport to achieve Ms X’s desired outcomes by the end of the year.
28. Ms X remained unhappy with the Councils actions and decisions and asked us to investigate.

Analysis

Reasonable adjustment request

29. The Council considered Ms X’s request for a reasonable adjustment. It reviewed Ms X’s reasons for the request, including wanting a written record, made enquiries with other supporting services and was flexible in its communication offer. Further, it advised Ms X that after it had completed an initial safeguarding meeting, all further communication would be via email where possible.
30. It used the evidence available to decide Ms X was not prevented from using its service through a disability. There was no fault with how the Council made its decision.

Safeguarding enquiry

31. The evidence shows the Council responded to safeguarding referrals regarding Ms X in line with its policy. It took no further action after considering all the information available to it and deciding it could not progress without Ms X’s engagement. Instead, it has progressed Ms X’s case to a protection plan review.
32. The Council has continued to review and offer Ms X safeguarding support, made appropriate referrals and signposted her to relevant support agencies. There was no fault with how the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Decision

33. I found no fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman