Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled a child safeguarding referral, their freedom of information and subject access requests and its communications with Mr X. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain that the Council:
1. acted with fault by attempting to telephone Mr X when it received a child safeguarding referral, despite being informed by Mrs X that this method of communication was contrary to the reasonable adjustments he required;
2. failed to report the outcome of the safeguarding referral to Mr and Mrs X in a timely manner;
3. failed to deal properly with their subject access and freedom of information requests and information about a social worker;
4. has consistently failed to adhere to or make reasonable adjustments in the way officers communicate with Mr X; and
5. failed to respond to their complaints.
2. Mr X says this has caused him extreme distress which has had a significant effect on his health. He wants the Council to apologise and to provide its staff with training on dealing with people with Asperger’s. He also wants the Council to compensate people it has discriminated against.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated all of Mr and Mrs X’s complaints other than complaint 1 c). I explain the reasons for this at the end of this decision statement.

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 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 Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
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. I considered the information provided by Mr and Mrs X and the Council. This included a report providing details about Mr X’s Asperger’s, Mr X’s autism card and complaints correspondence with the Council.
8. I spoke with an officer from the Council about this complaint.
9. I gave Mr and Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Equality Act 2020

10. The Equality Act says councils must take action to ensure the way they work does not place disabled people at a disadvantage. Where there are barriers to disabled people using a service, councils must consider making adjustments to the way they work. If a service user requests adjustments, and they are reasonable, they must be made.

What happened

11. Mr X has Asperger’s. One aspect of this means he generally finds telephone calls unacceptable or difficult.

Events relating to Mr X’s complaint about a safeguarding referral

12. In June 2020, Mr X had a referral for cognitive behavioural therapy which was carried out by the local NHS Trust and took place by telephone. The assessor asked Mr X to give an example of a recent scenario when he felt anxious. The example Mr X used included events that took place whilst his children were present.
13. The assessor had concerns about what Mr X had said and made a children’s safeguarding referral to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH). The MASH had no contact number for Mr X but it did have a telephone number for Mrs X and so a Council officer contacted her on 16 June 2020 and asked for Mr X’s contact number. Mrs X refused to give the officer Mr X’s number and said that because he had Asperger’s, he would not be able to talk on the phone. She said the officer persisted in asking for a contact number, but she continued to refuse. Mrs X states the officer said they would call her again in a few days with the outcome of the safeguarding referral.
14. Mr X complained to the Council on 19 June. He said the Council had discriminated against him by trying to speak to him on the telephone and had failed to make reasonable adjustments. He said it should not communicate with him without first carrying out a risk assessment and developing an action plan. Mr X also made complaints about the NHS assessment and the amount of education one of his children was receiving under the COVID-19 lockdown.
15. Mr X’s complaint included a number of comments the Council considered to be personal and abusive about particular Council staff.
16. Mrs X also sent in a letter of support for Mr X’s complaint. Mrs X said she told the officer that Mr X had Asperger’s and any unknown situation caused him extreme stress. Mrs X said this was why she did not give the officer Mr X’s phone number. She said the officer stated they would phone her again at the end of the week, but she received no further communications from them.
17. The Council responded on 23 June 2020. It did not address the issues Mr X had raised about discrimination. It explained it was following Government guidance for providing education during the lockdown. In relation to the assessment, it referred Mr X to the NHS Trust which had carried it out.
18. Mr X complained again on 6 July 2020. He said the Council had failed to respond to the discrimination complaints he had made.
19. The Council emailed Mr X on 7 July 2020 and said the safeguarding case had been closed. On the same day, it also responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said:

“Having liaised with our Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), I am aware the County Council contacted your family on 16th and 18th July 2020 to discuss a referral received from [the NHS Trust] regarding the safety and wellbeing of your children.

MASH was unable to speak to you to discuss the referral at that time as no contact number had been provided. The team did however manage to speak to [Mrs X] on 16th June 2020. Following this contact and appropriate checks having been undertaken by the County Council, the case was closed with no current safeguarding concerns identified in relation to your children.”

20. Mr X replied to the Council. He said it had a complete disregard for the Disability Discrimination Act and no concept of reasonable adjustments. He said disability discrimination was rife across the Council. He was unhappy the Council officer had phoned his home and accused them of bullying Mrs X to make her give them his phone number. Mr X made comments of a personal nature about the officer and their future wellbeing. Mr X also made some personal comments about another Council officer, again referring to their future wellbeing.
21. A Council officer replied on 23 July 2020. It reiterated its position that the Council had acted without fault when officers tried to speak to him to obtain his views on the safeguarding referral. The officer also stated Mr X’s language and the tone of the email was “totally inappropriate… I am aware that this was not an isolated incident as you have also sent abusive emails to [two other officers] in Adult Care Services in recent times. I must be clear with you that such behaviour will not be tolerated under any circumstances and any further communications from you of this nature will not be responded to by the County Council”.
22. Mr X responded on 5 August. He made several comments the Council found personal and abusive about the Council officer who had responded to him on 23 July. He did not raise any further points of fact about his original complaint.

Events relating to Mr X’s complaint about subject access requests

23. On 27 July 2020, Mr X made a subject access request (SAR) to the Council to obtain records relating him and his other family members.
24. The Council sent Mr X documents but he was unhappy because he thought some of them were missing. He contacted the Council again on 24 August to request this documentation. He also said he had deliberately put the wrong date of birth for one of his children on one of the request forms but “unfortunately the request was processed despite that”. Mr X also stated “…this is a war and I don’t take any prisoners. For your own protection, in a world of fascists like [officer name] you must make sure everything is properly checked”.
25. The Council responded the same day. It said it had provided documents in line with Mr X’s request. In relation to Mr X deliberately providing the wrong date of birth, it said that had not been particularly helpful but because he had also provided his child’s passport which contained the correct date of birth, the Council had been able to identify the person. In relation to Mr X’s comment about “for your own protection”, the Council said it had noted this as an implied threat against the officer.
26. On 1 September 2020, Mr X made a formal complaint. The tone and some of the content again made personal comments about officers. Mr X accused the Council of behaving “unprofessionally and discriminatory against someone with ASD”.
27. The Council responded on 18 September. It responded to the complaints Mr X had made about his SAR request. Its response included “I am clear the Data Protection Team has not discriminated against you in any way and that your SARs were processed and responded to in line with the Council’s Data Protection Policy… further the County Council is extremely concerned about the content and tone of your written complaint… please note therefore that the Council will not respond further to any communications from you which are abusive, insulting or contain inappropriate or offensive language”.

My findings

28. The Council received a safeguarding alert. It had a duty to make enquiries to decide what, if any, further action to take. It followed the appropriate procedures and acted proportionately when it tried to telephone Mr X. At this stage it had no former knowledge of him or any disabilities he may have. As a result, it did not have any reasonable adjustments agreed with him and was not in a position to know he may require them. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
29. Mr X said a Council officer told Mrs X they would contact her in a few days with the outcome of the safeguarding referral. He says the officer failed to do so and this caused him distress.
30. I will not investigate this matter any further. This is because I cannot know what was said on the telephone call and further investigation would not enable me to make a decision about this, even on the balance of probabilities. And in addition, the Council provided Mr X with an update within three weeks, which would not be sufficient delay for me to investigate further.
31. I have read the emails sent by Mr X to the Council. The Council has responded appropriately and promptly to them. Initially it did not provide an explanation to Mr X’s complaint about why it tried to contact him by telephone when the safeguarding alert was raised, but it did so shortly afterwards. Its responses were factual and addressed the issues made by Mr X. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
32. In his various emails to the Council, Mr X explained he had Asperger’s but provided no information about how that affected him and how he communicated with people. However, Mrs X told the Council that Mr X was unable to communicate via the telephone. Although this was not officially agreed as a reasonable adjustment, in any case, the Council did not telephone him again.
33. Despite the content of most of Mr X’s emails, the Council has not limited his contact with the Council or said it will not respond to communications from him. It has dealt with the substantive matters raised by Mr X. It has not refused to consider any reasonable adjustments requested by Mr X. What it has said is that it will not respond to any emails which it considers to be abusive or offensive. The Council has a duty of care towards its staff and so these were appropriate and proportionate steps to take. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

34. There was no fault in the Council’s actions. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

35. I have not investigated the complaint in paragraph 1c). This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider issues relating to freedom of information or subject access requests. Mr X has complained to the ICO and received a response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman