Summary: There was no fault in how the Council responded to Ms B’s enquiries about access to the household support fund. It was reasonable for it to direct Ms B to its complaints process if she wanted to pursue this.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that the Council has failed to deal with her enquiries regarding access to information about household support fund grants.
2. Ms B has explained to me that her ability to access public services varies according to how her disability is affecting her on that day. Ms B says that the Council’s handling of this has caused her distress and frustration, and disabled people are potentially missing out on access to grants.

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. 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 information provided by Ms B and discussed the issues with her. I considered the information provided by the Council. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have taken all comments into consideration before issuing my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.

What happened

12. Ms B lives with physical disabilities, chronic pain and fatigue, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
13. Councils received funding to help disadvantaged and vulnerable households with the essential costs. This is called the household support fund. The scheme was introduced by the government rapidly and had to be spent by 31 March 2022, and the guidance as to how it could be spent was not available to the Council in advance. The Council’s scheme meant that applicants would need to provide evidence to support the application. The Council decided that this would work best using an online form so that applicants could upload evidence. The Council also arranged for people to make an application by telephone where needed.
14. Ms B wanted information about the fund and the Council told her she could find this online. Ms B asked the Council how the information about the fund would be made available to those who could not go online due to disability or lack of technology. During her dealings with the Council, Ms B says its staff twice ended her calls, and had said that a disabled person may have a carer who could contact the Council for them, despite that this might not be what the carer is employed to do for that particular person.
15. Ms B complained to the Council about how it had managed her enquiries and that she still had not had a satisfactory response to these. The Council responded on the same day. It said that it responds to each person according to their individual circumstances and can take account of any disability or their accessibility needs. The Council asked Ms B to provide the details of anyone who might need the fund but could not use the online system to enquire about this.
16. Ms B expressed concern about the response and so the Council invited her to make a complaint to it. Ms B did not log a complaint but replied that she wanted paper application forms to give to her disabled friends and family. The Council responded that it does not have paper forms because these become obsolete but can complete an application by telephone or in person. Ms B raised that this would not be accessible to deaf people. The Council responded that a signing interpreter can be provided or the person could access the fund online. Ms B again raised potential problems with this including parking, access and toilet facilities at the Council’s one-stop shop.
17. The Council gave details of how to find disabled person’s parking and the required facilities. It said it could not engage in further discussion unless Ms B gave it details of who needed the service so they could see how best to make it accessible to that person. The Council invited Ms B to make a formal complaint.
18. Ms B told the Council she was concerned that it was limiting her access to the service when she was trying to raise legitimate concerns about accessibility. Ms B asked for clarification on the restrictions on communication: was the Council saying that it would not reply to her on just this issues or across any service?
19. The Council’s position is that:
• It responded to Ms B’s requests for information and offered twice to take her application over the phone. It considers it has responded appropriately to her enquiries.
• The Council explained how disabled residents could access the fund. It said it would not respond to any further calls or contact from Ms B on this issue because it considered it had addressed her concerns as far as possible.
• The Council told Ms B she could ask for her complaint to be considered at stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure.
20. Ms B has told me that she only kept contacting the Council because her accessibility questions were not answered. In short, Ms B considered the Council had made assumptions that a severely disabled person would have a carer or that administration would be part of their care plan, or that a disabled person could access the website or the one stop shop. Ms B has also explained that she found her dealings with the staff to be distressing and says they did not understand anxiety or the needs of disabled people and were unable to de-escalate contact, particularly when she pointed out inclusion failings.
21. In response to my investigation the Council has explained that it did not complete its own formal equality impact assessment because the Government had already considered the impact of the funding on equality and because the Council had to implement the scheme so quickly.
22. The Council has explained that it took successful applications in different forms to meet individuals’ needs. In Ms B’s case it telephoned her as arranged to go through the online process. However, Ms B was not able to proceed at that time.

Was there fault by the Council causing an injustice to Ms B?

23. I appreciate that the Council did not answer Ms B’s enquiries to her satisfaction, and that she found its approach distressing and unhelpful. I agree that it may not have been appropriate for an officer to suggest a carer can make the application for a person in need. This presumes that the disabled person has a carer and that this type of administration task is on the care plan.
24. Ms B raised a valid and important concern that the Council cannot rely on disabled people to raise issues and should anticipate what a disabled person may need in order to access the service.
25. However, overall, the Council has explained how it might deal with different accessibility issues, for example by offering to complete the application face-to-face or over the phone, and by offering to provide a signed interpreter. We cannot decide that a council has breached the breached the Equality Act. However, the Council has taken into account the needs presented by a variety of disabilities in deciding not to offer paper forms for the fund, and what reasonable adjustments it should make where people cannot access the application process via its website.
26. The Council attempted to meet Ms B’s individual needs and telephoned her as requested to go through the online process. Had Ms B wanted to proceed with the application, the Council was already in a position to arrange the application be made by telephone or face to face.
27. I have looked at whether there was fault by the Council when it told Ms B that it would not respond to her further on contact about accessing the household support fund. Here, the Council is saying it has dealt with the enquiries and cannot add to what it has already told Ms B. The Council has limited resources and must use these wisely. It was not wrong for the Council to decide it could not help her further, and to direct Ms B to its complaints procedure so the matter could be reviewed.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman