Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council officer declining to allow Mrs X’s husband to accompany her into an interview. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. We would also be unlikely to recommend more than the Council has already offered by refunding an application fee and offering to re-run the process with Mrs X’s husband present at the interview.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said the Council wrongly blamed her for an incident at its offices. She said it denied her request for her husband to accompany her during an interview, leading to embarrassment in a public place. She wanted the Council to apologise and arrange training for staff in dealing with women with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. 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.
4. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
5. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are:

• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• marriage and civil partnership;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex; and
• sexual orientation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X needed to attend the Council’s offices for an interview. The correspondence between her and the Council shows she requested some adjustments due to her ASD. The Council accepted these. A specific issue was the date and time of the interview as she stated she needed her husband to come with her as she needed reassurance when visiting a new place. The correspondence does not show she asked the Council her husband could be present during the interview.
9. When Mrs X was called for the interview, the officer declined to allow Mrs X’s husband to join her. Mrs X said the officer made an inappropriate comment about her ability to cope and the conversation was in public. Mrs X said she was distressed and left. She then withdrew her application, and the council refunded her fee. It has told me it would be happy to re-run the application and to conduct the interview with Mrs X’s husband present.
10. It is clear that the request for Mrs X to be accompanied during the interview was a surprise to the officer. Mrs X had previously requested adjustments for her ASD that the officer had accepted. And it is likely Mrs X assumed, reasonably, that her husband would be able to come into the interview room as well as accompanying her to the building. But the correspondence between her and the officer had not mentioned this. While the incident was unfortunate, it is unlikely investigation by us would find it could have been predicted, or establish exactly what was said. It is also unlikely that investigation by us would find the Council failed to consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010 due to the sudden nature of the incident. And it is unlikely we would recommend more than the Council has already offered by proposing to re-run the application with an adjustment for Mrs X’s husband to be with her during the interview.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. We would also be unlikely to recommend more than the Council has already offered by way of attempting to progress the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman