Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure to make reasonable adjustments for Mrs X. Further investigation by us would not add to the Council’s own investigation or to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said the Council’s adult services’ financial team did not make the requested adjustments in dealing with her, or respond to her emails. She said the Council did not escalate her complaint about this to Stage 2 of its complaint procedure as requested, and did not adequately respond to the complaint. She said the Council eventually upheld her complaint, but the adults’ services team had not apologised, and that the policy they had sent her was not a policy but national guidance.
2. She wanted the Council to implement a “tell us once “ policy, to remind all staff of their duty to check for reasonable adjustments, to provide an apology for the anxiety caused by not making reasonable adjustments for her, and to advise families that they have a choice about the stage at which a complaint is considered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In its final response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council confirmed that staff in the children’s services department had not passed on details of the reasonable adjustments made for her when it transferred her child’s case to adults’ services. It also stated that staff were aware of the Council’s statutory duty to consider requests for adjustments and to make those deemed reasonable. The Council’s final response also confirmed that Mrs X’s request for a teams meeting was a reasonable adjustment and that this had been confirmed to staff. It apologised that staff had originally refused the request.
8. While Mrs X told us she wanted the Council to take further action, I am satisfied that the Council has considered her complaint and that its apology is sufficient for the injustice caused by fault. We would not expect a separate apology from staff in a service area. It is clear from its final response to Mrs X that the Council is aware of its public sector equality duty to consider whether it needs to make reasonable adjustments for service users. And while the failure to pass on information when Mrs X’s child reached a new service stage was fault, the expectation that it should do so already exists, regardless of any new policy. The Council’s duty is also set out in national guidance, so we would not expect it to draw up a separate policy, but instead to implement the national guidance set out following the Equality Act 2010. Investigating why the Council responded twice to Mrs X’s complaint at Stage 1 of its complaint procedure rather than escalating the complaint to Stage 2 would not lead to any different outcome as it correctly referred Mrs X to us and did not seek to prevent her doing so.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because doing so would be unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation or to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman