Summary: Mr X complained that the Council took too long to respond to his report about a taxi driver and did not make reasonable adjustments when communicating with him. He says this caused avoidable frustration and made it harder for him to take part in the complaint process. The Council delayed its initial response and did not take account of Mr X’s adjustments soon enough. These were faults. There was not significant injustice to Mr X and the Council has apologised, which is a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council took too long to respond to his report about a taxi driver and did not make reasonable adjustments when communicating with him. He says this caused avoidable frustration and made it harder for him to take part in the complaint process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities
   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.
7. 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.
8. 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

9. Mr X contacted the Council in June 2025 and reported a parking incident involving a private hire vehicle. The Council did not acknowledge Mr X’s report but a member of staff telephoned him after nine working days to discuss his concerns.
10. Mr X submitted a stage one complaint to the Council about the delay. He said that due to his disability he struggles to read and write, and that he asked the Council to take his complaint over the phone. Mr X says he was directed to use the Council’s online form to submit his complaint.
11. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage one in time but in writing. It said the delay was due to an administrative error and apologised to Mr X.
12. Mr X raised a stage two complaint in July 2025. The Council again responded in time but in writing. It apologised again for the delays responding to Mr X’s initial report.
13. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in August 2025. In September 2025 he attended the Council’s offices to discuss his concerns, but had not arranged an appointment and staff were not available to speak to him. A manager then wrote to Mr X in response to the issues he raised. The manager spoke with Mr X the following day and apologised for writing to him. Mr X asked to discuss his concerns with the Council’s Chief Executive.
14. The Council’s Chief Executive met with Mr X in October 2025. She apologised that the Council had written to him rather than telephoning, as per his reasonable adjustments.

Analysis

15. The Council’s complaint response to Mr X stated its Licensing Department aims to respond to service requests within five working days. It took nine working days to contact Mr X about his initial report. This was fault. The delay caused some frustration, but the injustice to Mr X was not significant. And in any case, the Council has apologised to Mr X, which is an appropriate remedy.
16. Mr X told the Council that he struggled to read and write, yet it continued to direct him to online processes and responded in writing. The Council should have considered reasonable adjustments sooner. This was fault.
17. However, Mr X had support to read and respond to written communications and he was able to engage with the complaint process, so any injustice caused was not significant. I have not seen evidence of a wider systemic issue. I consider the Council’s apology, given personally by the Chief Executive, to be an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Decision

18. I find fault not causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman