Summary: Miss Q complains the Council has not made reasonable adjustments to its communications; adjustments she needs, due to her disability. It has also not backdated an award of council tax support. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint, due to some concerns about the Council’s record keeping, and its exploration of Miss Q’s requests and communications. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss Q, complains that:
1. The Council has not made the reasonable adjustments she requested and needs, as somebody who is registered blind. For example it:

• did not rearrange an appointment at her home and instead advised she needed to go to its offices;
• refused to discuss matters on the telephone, unless she had the relevant documents in front of her;
• says it cannot send all correspondence in large font. Instead, it has said she needs to contact it if she receives a bill she cannot read, so it could re-send it;
• has told her to complete forms, despite her advising it she cannot do this.
1. Council staff were rude to her; when she told them she needed to do things verbally they kept on asking her why. The complaint response questioned whether she needed documents in large font.
2. With support, she completed a council tax reduction form. But the Council still did not backdate the award.
3. The Council did not respond to contacts from an organisation that was helping her.

2. Miss Q says it should have been straightforward for the Council to transfer the support and exemptions she was already receiving in a different part of the County. The delay has caused her stress and anxiety. It has also led to her getting into debt.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal or court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal or go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a)(c), as amended)
6. 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

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Miss Q;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its responses;
• spoken to Miss Q;
• sent a draft decision to Miss Q and the Council. After comments received, I revised and reissued the draft decision and invited further comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Council tax, including band reductions

8. Council Tax is a tax made on domestic properties. Councils issue one bill to each household. The council tax regulations allow councils to award several discounts and exemptions. These include discounts for people living alone and band reductions for disabled persons who meet certain criteria.

Council tax support/reduction

9. Council tax support (sometimes called council tax reduction) are local schemes to help those on a low income with payment towards all or part of their council tax. Each council has its own rules for what it will pay working age claimants.
10. In 2013, council tax support replaced council tax benefit. The new rules mean council tax support is a reduction in council tax, rather then a welfare benefit. But in many councils, including this one, the benefits team (not the team that manages council tax) still process council tax support/reduction claims.
11. The Council’s scheme has a provision to allow backdating of an award for up to six months before the date of claim, if the applicant met the conditions of entitlement for the earlier period and had good cause for failing to make an earlier application.

Reasonable adjustments

12. The Equality Act 2010 says an individual or organisation that provides a service to the public, such as councils, must not treat someone worse just because of one or more “protected characteristics”. Protected characteristics include people with disabilities.
13. When the duty arises, the public body is under a positive and proactive duty to look at removing or preventing obstacles to a disabled person accessing its services. If the adjustments are reasonable it must make them.
14. The Act is supported by a Code of Practice, which is statutory guidance. This means public bodies must have regard to it. One of the examples in this Code says:

“A person with a visual impairment regularly receives printed letters regarding his social security benefits, despite the fact that on previous occasions he has indicated his need for Braille and this has been provided. He finds this repeated need to telephone to ask for Braille frustrating and inconvenient, but is told that the software, which generates communications, does not enable a record to be kept of customers’ needs for alternative formats. This may constitute a failure to make reasonable adjustments if it is judged to have left the disabled person at a substantial disadvantage and there was a reasonable adjustment that could have been made.”

15. If a person believes they have been discriminated against because of the actions of a service provider, they may make a claim for damages in county court. However, government guidance says:

“Defending or taking a claim in court can be lengthy, expensive and draining. It can also have a damaging impact on the reputation of an organisation. It is likely to be in everyone’s interest to try to put things right before a claim is made to a court.”

What happened

16. Miss Q has a visual impairment and is registered blind. She had been living in another district within the County. She says she received council tax single person discount, disability band reduction and council tax support there.
17. In June 2018, Miss Q was due to move to the Borough. So, at the end of May, she contacted the Council’s Revenues team (this is the team that deals with council tax, including discounts and exemptions). It transferred her to its Benefits team (the team that deals with council tax support claims). The Council says this was because Miss Q demanded to speak to a manager.
18. After further communications with Miss Q, on 21 June, a Council officer from the Benefits team (Officer S) and another officer (Officer R – a manager in the team) visited her to support her with a claim for council tax support. The Council says the officers also intended to check for disability band reductions (although there is no indication in the Council’s files to suggest this). Officer R visited as Miss Q had requested to speak to a manager. The Council says it also intended to discuss reasonable adjustments, although there is no record of this intention.
19. Miss Q was not in. The Officers spoke to her. She advised she had forgotten about the meeting and would be in touch.
20. Miss Q has sent me a 10 July email she sent to Officer S, advising she had forgotten about the meeting. She asked him to contact her to arrange other dates to complete the form. The Council does not have this email (or any response) in the records it sent me.
21. On 2 August Miss Q emailed the Council advising she was waiting for contact about a visit. She noted she was registered blind and needed someone to collect information. The Council responded to advise it had suggested she emailed the information she wanted to provide.
22. On 4 August Miss Q responded, asking for contact from a named person and not a generic email address, as a reasonable adjustment. She also advised she did not want two officers to visit.
23. On 13 August Miss Q spoke to Officer R. He agreed the Council would send correspondence in large font. Later the same day Miss Q received a council tax bill in the post. An automated system had sent this a few days before. Miss Q emailed Officer R to complain the bill was not in large font
24. Miss Q also advised Officer R she would provide the information the Council had sought (for her council tax support claim), when she was next in the town centre, on 21 August. The Council says Miss Q insisted she wanted her claim backdated. It says Officer R advised her she needed to provide reasons in the relevant section of the claim form. However its records do not include a contemporaneous note of that advice.
25. The Council has a record on its Benefits team’s system, dated 14 August, noting Miss Q needed communications in large font. But it could not use its usual method to log (‘flag’) this, as Miss Q had not made a council tax support claim. The note instructs staff in its Benefits team to notify the Revenues team of any changes in Miss Q’s council tax reduction, as they would likely lead, automatically, to production of a new council tax bill.
26. On 15 August Officer R emailed Miss Q with information.
• He would add a flag to her account, after she made her claim on 21 August.
• The council tax bill came from a separate section, so it would not know Miss Q’s need for large font. He had now let the council tax manager know about Miss Q’s needs.
• He asked Miss Q for authorisation to send her the bill in large font.
27. Officer R spoke with Miss Q the following day. His note says he advised her the Council could not agree that a manager would ring her every time before it sent correspondence. But she could contact the team if there were issues that needed clarification. The note records Miss Q ended the conversation abruptly.
28. Later the same day Officer R emailed Miss Q. He advised her the Benefits team would contact her by email to allow her to increase the size of the font. He also sought to clarify with Miss Q what size font she needed.
29. Miss Q’s reply:
• clarified the font size.
• Advised she could not enlarge email font size on her computer.
• Noted she was getting discounts to her council tax at her old address.
30. Officer R responded. He apologised for assuming she could enlarge the font. He noted the system automatically produced letters; with no facility to send those letters in large font. But, if Miss Q emailed him when she received correspondence that was not in large font, he would reproduce it for her in large font.
31. A 17 August record on the Benefit team’s file notes Miss Q’s need for larger font. On 19 August the Council emailed Miss Q advising it had agreed to contact her by email in a larger font.
32. Miss Q visited the Council’s offices on 21 August. She completed a claim for council tax support and filled in a form to claim discounts on her council tax. She asked the Council to consider backdating her claim for council tax support, to the date she moved in. The officer who helped Miss Q complete the form, wrote on the section for explaining reasons for the backdate: “see [Officer R] Benefits”.
33. On 22 August, Officer R converted Miss Q’s council tax bill to large font and emailed it to her. She later emailed him asking for an urgent call, as the bill did not include any discounts and was asking for £200 a month from her.
34. On 3 September, the Council’s Benefits team awarded Miss Q council tax support. The Council sent Miss Q the decision letter in large font. The Council Benefit team’s file note says:

“claimant has requested a back date from 18/06, apparently [Officer R] has approved this.”

35. The Council says this note does not record Miss Q’s need to provide reasons for the backdate, as this was a normal process, that did not need re-iterating on every system note.
36. On 8 September Miss Q contacted Officer R advising she had received two further council tax bills in small font. She said she had asked the Council to call her before sending bills. She had complained.
37. Miss Q spoke to Officer R on 10 September about the bills. The Council’s record of that call says Officer R advised it was better if Miss Q called him back when she had the bill in front of her, so he could talk her through it. Miss Q objected to this and then ended the call before Officer R could transfer her to the council tax team.
38. Officer R emailed Miss Q. He reminded her that he had advised she might sometimes get letters not in large font. But he would now convert the bill she had received to the larger font.
39. The Council’s system has a further note, dated 10 September, that all correspondence to Miss Q needed to be in large font. On 11 September it has another reminder for staff in the Benefit’s section to let the Revenues team know when there was a change of circumstances.
40. On 12 September, Officer R emailed Miss Q advising her about action he had taken and warning her she would receive a new bill, when the Benefits team backdated her council tax support claim. If she emailed him, he would arrange a bill in a larger font. He also suggested Miss Q set up an on-line account, as that would allow her to adjust the settings for font size. The Council’s file has a notification that Miss Q’s email server rejected this email. There is no record of the Council re-sending it. In response to my draft decision it said Miss Q blocked this email, although there is no note of this in the Council’s records.
41. In early November the Council’s Revenues team responded to the form, claiming discounts, Miss Q had completed in August. It sent her a form, in enlarged font, to claim disabled band reduction. Miss Q responded to advise she had completed several forms and she could not begin to make council tax payments until the Council awarded her the discount.
42. The Council has records around this time of two calls from Miss Q that officers considered abusive. It logged an alert on its records: noting officers should deal with Miss Q’s contacts, but not accept foul or abusive language.
43. Miss Q complained about council tax asking her to complete a form to claim a reduction. In early December, the Council responded to advise the reason it needed Miss Q to make a new application was because she had moved home. It advised her it still needed her to complete the form and provide evidence from her GP.
44. The Council discussed with Miss Q various ways for her to access the contents of the complaint response. She advised she was meeting the following week with a charitable organisation (Organisation S) which she hoped could help her. Miss Q advised she wanted a named officer assigned to work with her.
45. Later in the week somebody from Organisation S telephoned the Council. The Council advised it was eager and willing to help. It has a note the line cut out and the Organisation S person did not call back.
46. Miss Q complained to the Ombudsman. In response to my enquiries, the Council advised:
• “The Council is unable to comply with [Miss Q]’s request that ALL correspondence is sent in large font as some letters are generated automatically by IT systems and it is not practical to search all correspondence to find letters which may or may not be addressed to [Miss Q].”
• It noted one instance where an officer questioned whether Miss Q needed a large font transcript. But it said this was an isolated instance.
• It advised the reasonable adjustments agreed with Miss Q and put in place were:
1. “Wherever practical or possible, all correspondence will be sent via e mail and translated into large font…”
2. “Should any correspondence be received which is not in this format if [Miss Q] notifies the Council, either by telephone or e mail, a large font transcript will be provided.”

• Miss Q could also telephone the Council to discuss the contents of any correspondence the Council sent her.
• it did not have a reasonable adjustment policy.
• It advised it had awarded Miss Q’s council tax support claim from the date she completed the claim form. It said it had agreed to provide a backdate, but she had not provided reasons why her claim was delayed. It cites Officer R’s 12 September email as when it requested this information.

47. Miss Q advised the Council awarded and backdated the discounts and exemptions to the date she moved into the property. It also awarded council tax support, but did not backdate this claim.

The Council’s response to my draft decision

48. In the above narrative of what happened, I have added several notes, as a result of the Council’s response to my first draft decision. In that response it raised several other issues:
• The nature of many of its calls with Miss Q were long. It says Miss Q had a rude and demeaning manner. It says that, because of this “[a]s a result many details of the call content could have been missed when trying to record the call after its completion”.
• Its view was during email and telephone contact it made Miss Q fully aware of what adjustments it considered reasonable, although its view was many of her requests were not reasonable.
• The council tax reduction claim form made it clear that Miss Q needed to provide a written explanation why her claim was late. “[S]ee Officer R” were not adequate reasons.
• It was still willing to consider a backdate of council tax support. It said, in the period after the events I have considered, it had made Miss Q and her representative from Organisation S aware of this. But they had not provided written reasons why her application was late. It needed written reasons for auditing reasons. It said the only conclusion it could draw was that Miss Q was refusing to do so.

Was there fault by the Council?

The Council’s delay in awarding discounts and exemptions

49. It is not fault for the Council to ask Miss Q for any information it needed to assess her claims for the various support, discounts and exemptions. I agree with the Council that it need itself to assess such claims. There does seem to have been some delay (August to November) in sending Miss Q one of the forms. But Miss Q says the issues are now resolved. And the Council has backdated the single person discount and band reduction to the date Miss Q moved in. So my view is that no further action is needed with this part of Miss Q’s complaint.

Backdating the council tax support claim

50. The Council says it had agreed to provide a backdate. But Miss Q did not provide reasons why she was late in making her claim. I find the explanation unsatisfactory for the following reasons.
• The 3 September note on the Benefits team’s system, does not have any record of a need to provide reasons. I note the Council’s comments, but it has no record of it advising Miss Q of the need for evidence. Or a note it was awaiting evidence, which I would have expected to see.
• The Council says that Miss Q’s instruction in her claim form to “see Officer R” was inadequate, as it needed an explanation in writing from Miss Q. But I cannot see any record of it going back to Miss Q to explain it needed written reasons. The Council cites communications when Officer R made this clear. But this is not supported by the record of that call.
• Contrary to the Council’s explanation, the 12 September email does not ask Miss Q to supply reasons. It says that “when” (not if) the Benefit team awarded a backdate, she would get a new bill.
• In any case, Miss Q did not receive the 12 September email.
51. While it is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether a council should backdate a council tax support award, my view is the Council did not adequately explain to Miss Q what she needed to do for it to award a backdate. So I uphold this part of the complaint.

The Council has not made the reasonable adjustments sought

52. Miss Q has a right to go to court if she believes the Council has discriminated against her by not making reasonable adjustments, or breaching the reasonable adjustments put in place. However, we must consider if it is reasonable for Miss Q to go to court.
53. Government guidance says taking court action about discrimination can be “lengthy, expensive and draining”. Given Miss Q’s communication difficulties, I do not consider it reasonable to expect her to take action in court. Only the courts can decide whether the Council has discriminated against Miss Q. But we can decide if the Council has acted with fault in dealing with Miss Q and her requests for reasonable adjustments.
54. Key to understanding whether there has been fault is recognising:
• The Council’s proactive duty to make adjustments.
• The Council only has the duty to make ‘reasonable’ adjustments.
55. At various points Miss Q has made the following requests for adjustments:
• That officers visit her at home.
• That only one officer visits.
• That she has a named manager assigned to contact her.
• The named person contacts her before the Council sends out any correspondence.
• The Council sends out all communications about council tax and council tax support in size 24 font.
56. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide whether Miss Q requests were either related to her disability, or reasonable. Or whether the Council could offer alternative adjustments. But we can look at how the Council explored with Miss Q her need for reasonable adjustments.
57. Miss Q’s main communication was with the Council’s Benefit’s team, that deals with council tax support. That team’s records suggest its officers, including Officer R, used significant amounts of time dealing with Miss Q’s contacts. I can see the Council did make some changes in the way it contacted Miss Q:
• An initial home visit.
• It sent some communications in larger font.
• Automated communications were enlarged on Miss Q’s request.
• Alerts were placed on the Benefits team’s systems to liaise with the council tax (Revenues) team.
• Officer R alerted the Revenues team about Miss Q’s need for larger font.
58. There is however some evidence these instructions were not always followed. For example, on 3 September the Council’s Benefits section made a decision on Miss Q’s council tax support claim. But that section does not seem to have told the Council’s Revenues team; despite a note on its system to do so. If this had happened, somebody from the Council might have warned Miss Q its system would produce a new council tax bill.
59. I also note the Council advised Miss Q it could not agree to send every letter out in enlarged font. This was because of the automated system used for council tax. Again, it is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether Miss Q’s request was reasonable. But I would have expected to see a record on file of the Council’s consideration of the request with reference to the Equality Act and its Code of Practice. I say this with reference to the example from the Code of Practice cited above (paragraph 14), which has a similar scenario.
60. Miss Q has told me that, because of to the extra complexity she faces, due to her disability, it was reasonable for her to request a named contact. Again, I would have expected to see a more detailed record setting out the Council’s reasons why its view that that request was not reasonable.

Other issues with the Council’s communications and record keeping

61. I have identified other issues where my view is there was fault by the Council:
• Miss Q has sent me an email she sent the Council on 10 July. This is not in the Council’s files and it did not respond.
• Officer R sent Miss Q a helpful email (see paragraph 40). But the Council’s own notes have a record Miss Q’s email system had rejected the email. Somebody in the Council should have noticed this and re-sent the information. The Council now says Miss Q rejected this email, although there is no record of this in its files.
• I have noted several instances in the Council’s records where its notes do not match what it said happened. It cites the difficulties with Miss Q’s calls as a reason why it might have missed some issues. I acknowledge the records do suggest some telephone conversations with Miss Q were difficult. But my view is it remains a reasonable expectation for the Council to keep a detailed enough record of conversations to highlight advice given and received. The lack of a record must lead to some uncertainty about what was said.

The rearranged appointment. Staff were rude. Miss Q’s request for verbal communications

62. On 2 August the Council suggested Miss Q send information by post. But the Council had earlier decided Miss Q needed a home visit. And Miss Q had not made a claim at that point. So my view is that was inappropriate advice, without first exploring with Miss Q whether she needed any reasonable adjustments.
63. Officer R has apologised for his assumption Miss Q could enlarge font size.
64. It seems the 10 September call was difficult. But my view it was a sensible suggestion to discuss the bill when Miss Q had it in front of her.
65. Officers have a duty to explore reasonable adjustments. But they can also expect callers to treat them with respect. Miss Q’s view is officers have been rude to her. Conversely, the Council’s records suggest concerns about Miss Q’s behaviour over multiple calls, and says she has been rude and demeaning to staff. It would not be proportionate for me to try and reconcile each conflicting account of what happened during every call. However, I have seen no evidence which suggests Council staff were openly rude towards Miss Q.

The Council has not responded to contacts from an organisation

66. Contrary to Miss Q’s understanding, the records show the Council did speak to Organisation S, who advised it would telephone back. In the period this complaint covers, there is no record Organisation S did this. I do not uphold this part of the complaint.

Did the fault cause an injustice?

67. The Council clearly has made some adjustments to its contact with Miss Q. But the lack of a reasonable adjustment policy means the Council missed opportunities to always follow its intentions. And to inform Miss Q formally what adjustments it had agreed.
68. The issues where I have found fault will have led Miss Q to some frustration. She remains of the view that some of the adjustments she is seeking are reasonably needed for her to overcome substantial disadvantage. In particular, I note that one of the examples in the Code of Practice closely mirrors what she requested and the Council’s response. The lack of a formal recorded consideration of this and other requests, leads to uncertainty.
69. The lack of recorded notice to Miss Q of the evidence the Council needed from her for the backdate of her council tax support award mean an ongoing uncertainty about the debt left by the lack of a backdate.

Recommended action

70. I recommended that, within a month of my final decision the Council:
• Make Miss Q a payment equivalent to the amount of the council tax support it would have awarded if it had backdated her claim. My view is the fault I have found provides enough reasons to explain the delay in Miss Q making her council tax support claim. I am not asking the Council to change its council tax support decision. But it can use this payment towards the arrears on Miss Q’s council tax account.
• Write to Miss Q to apologise for the faults I have identified.
• Contacts Miss Q again to discuss with her reasonable adjustments, taking into account the findings of this decision. I am not making a finding on whether Miss Q’s requests are reasonable. But I am asking the Council to keep a record behind its reasons to agree or refuse a request; with reference to the Equality Act and its Code of Practice.
71. The Council advises it does not have any policy or procedure on reasonable adjustments. My view is needs one, as without an organisational view officers have no guidelines on what they should do to make services accessible for people with disabilities. A procedure might have meant some of the faults I have identified could have been avoided.
72. So I recommended that, within three months of my final decision, the Council develops a (Council wide) policy on how to check with service users whether they need any reasonable adjustments, because of a disability, to allow access to a service.
73. It is for the Council to decide the extent of that policy. But it should ensure it complies with the requirements of the Equality Act and its Code of Practice; for example that the duty is anticipatory. I also recommend the Policy should outline:
• when officers should ask about adjustments.
• When the Council does agree an adjustment, it needs to keep a record of what has been agreed, or why it has not agreed to a request.
74. The Council should send the Ombudsman evidence it has complied with the personal remedies to Miss Q and send me a copy of the policy.
75. The Council has advised it agrees with my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

76. I uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendations, so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman