Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to send Ms X a letter in large print. The injustice to Ms X from this fault was aggravated by the Council’s repeated failure to make this reasonable adjustment over several years and despite two previous complaints to the Ombudsman. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that despite two previous complaints to the Ombudsman, the Council continues to write to her without making the reasonable adjustment she needs. Ms X needs letters in large print.
2. As a result, Ms X has been unable to reliably access information about her council tax and has experienced significant and avoidable distress.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the complaint and the information Ms X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Ms X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Reasonable adjustments

9. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body 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.
10. 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.
11. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

12. In two previous complaints to the Ombudsman (ref 21006085 and ref 22012376) we found fault with the Council for failing to write to Ms X about her council tax in large print.
13. The Council agreed to ensure that its future communication with Ms X was in large print following both of these complaints.
14. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided evidence that most of its correspondence with Ms X about council tax has been in large print. However, one letter in July 2023 was not. The letter told Ms X that the Council had decided to grant discretionary relief from council tax and so she did not owe any more council tax for that year.
15. Ms X returned this letter unread and the Council resent the letter in large print at the end of July. The Council’s failure to send the letter in large print was fault.
16. Although only one letter among the eight the Council sent to Ms X about council tax, I nonetheless find that this fault caused Ms X significant injustice.
17. Ms X had to go to the time, effort, and expense of returning the letter for the Council to resend it in a format she could read. This is an injustice to Ms X.
18. Ms X experienced avoidable distress and frustration at receiving a letter she could not read. This was aggravated by the fault found in 23007765, where the Council failed to write in large print about Ms X’s council tax support application. The injustice is also aggravated because this is the third complaint in as many years where we have found the same fault. Ms X’s distress and frustration at the repeated failure is understandable and justified.
19. Ms X says letters from other departments in the Council are also not in large print. We do not expect different parts of the Council to know about an individual’s reasonable adjustments agreed with a particular department. Different departments use different systems and have access to different information about an individual. Data protection law and policies means the Council is limited in what information it can share, even internally. I do not, therefore, find fault with the Council for not writing to Ms X in large print from other services where that service had no previous contact from Ms X to request this.
20. However, the Council should ensure that correspondence to residents, such as those about elections or more locally about planning applications, are available in accessible formats. The Council should tell people how to request such versions.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. To remedy the injustice to Ms X from the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
• Resend Ms X the letter from 25 July 2023 correcting the error and notifying her that her account balance for the year was zero
• Pay Ms X £500 in recognition of her significant, avoidable, and aggravated distress and frustration as well as the time, effort and expense of returning letters she could not read.
22. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman