Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not send him information about changes to his waste collection service in an accessible format, despite knowing he requires reasonable adjustments. He also complains it did not properly assess the impact of the waste collection service changes on him and about the way it handled his complaint about these matters. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for not dealing with Mr X’s request for reasonable adjustments in a timely manner and the way it handled his complaint. It has already acted to remedy the injustice that it caused therefore we have made one service improvement recommendation to prevent the fault from reoccurring, which the Council has agreed to carry out.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council did not send him information about changes to his waste collection service in an accessible format, despite knowing he requires reasonable adjustments. He also complains it did not properly assess the impact of the waste collection service changes on him and about the way it handled his complaint about these matters.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have:
• Read Mr X’s complaint and discussed it with him.
• Considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
• Provided both parties with an opportunity to comment on the draft decision and considered the comments that were made.

Back to top

What I found

5. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function, such as a local authority. It aims to ensure that a disabled person can use a service as close as is reasonably possible to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
6. When the duty arises, the body offering the service is under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles which may hinder access to the service. This is an anticipatory duty, meaning providers should not wait until a disabled person wants to use their service before they consider whether to make reasonable adjustments.
7. Regarding the provision of information:

“The Act states that where a provision, criterion or practice places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage, and this relates to the provision of information, the steps which it is reasonable to take include steps to ensure that the information is provided in an accessible format.”

8. Section 149 of the Act contains details of the Public Sector Equality Duty, which requires public authorities to have due regard to a number of equality considerations when exercising their functions. One of these considerations includes whether to carry out an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA), the purpose of which is to assess whether any proposed change to a policy or service will have a disparate impact on persons with protected characteristics.
9. The Act does not require public authorities to carry out an EIA, but it is encouraged and helps demonstrate their compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty.

What happened

10. Mr X uses a wheelchair and is visually impaired. He lives in a house and is provided with an assisted waste collection service by the Council.
11. In mid-July 2018, the Council sent him a standard letter notifying him it was making significant changes to its waste collection system in October 2018. The letter said residents would be provided with new wheelie bins and stated some collection days might change. Mr X states the letter noted he lived in a house and was accompanied by a leaflet detailing the proposed changes. The leaflet stated that those receiving assisted collections would continue to receive this service.
12. When Mr X received the letter he called the Council to state he needed it and leaflet in a different format. He states the operator told him that someone would call him back.
13. Around 11 days later, Mr X states he received a call from a Council officer about the matter. He discussed his needs and said he could not understand why he was provided with a letter in an inaccessible format, given he was known to the Council. He says the officer assured him a version in the format he required would be sent by email.
14. At the beginning of August, Mr X says he received an email containing a copy of the leaflet in the correct format, but not the letter. Consequently, he emailed the officer and asked her to send him a copy of it.
15. Approximately a week later, Mr X states he called the officer to hasten the matter and left her a voicemail message, but she did not respond to this. After another week passed, he says he emailed another officer to make him aware of the issue.
16. At the end of the month, he called the Council when he did not receive a response to his request. He says he subsequently received a draft copy of the letter but not the full version.
17. Mr X then submitted a complaint to the Council about these matters. He complained the Council was aware of his needs as he had notified it of these on a number of occasions, but it had failed to provide the information in the format he required. He also highlighted the Council’s duty to make reasonable adjustments was an anticipatory one.
18. At the beginning of October 2018, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to respond and provided a copy of the letter. It also apologised for the inconvenience caused by the delay in providing this letter.
19. Two days later, Mr X emailed the Council and asked it to escalate his complaint. He said its response did not address his concerns and the letter he was sent was an abridged version of the original letter, which he found discriminatory.
20. Later in the month, the Council provided Mr X with new wheelie bins. Toward the end of the month, he started experiencing problems with his bin collection.
21. At the beginning of November 2018, the Council noted Mr X had called asking that the new bins be removed. It also noted he was unable to use the bins because of his disabilities and had asked that his service be assessed, adding he had submitted this request two weeks previously.
22. A couple of days later, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage two of its corporate procedure. It upheld his complaint but asserted the abridged letter he was given contained the same information as the original letter, only in a different layout. It also added it had no way of sharing information about reasonable adjustments across the organisation but accepted there had been a delay in providing the information in a format he required.
23. Mr X subsequently emailed the Council to highlight some errors in its complaint response. He said the abridged letter did not contain the same information as the original letter and he was yet to receive a copy of this in the format he required. He also noted the response assumed he lived in a flat and stated the Council was not meeting its anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments in this instance, stating its comments about being unable to share information across departments was not good enough.
24. In the middle of the month, Mr X submitted a new complaint to the Council about his waste not being collected. He again highlighted he could not use the new wheelie bins and reiterated his request for an assessment.
25. The following day, the Council noted there was a problem with its Information Technology (IT) systems, noting that Mr X had been sent communal flat leaflets and new wheelie bins.
26. The next day, an officer from Waste Services visited Mr X and carried out an assessment of his service. The officer confirmed he would have his waste bags collected from an external cupboard located next to his property and the wheelie bins would be removed. Mr X states that prior to the assessment, Waste Services had failed to remove his household refuse on three consecutive appointed days.
27. At the end of the month, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaints. It said it was clear he did not receive the information in the format he required but it had instructed Waste Services to transcribe the correct letters for a house. It also accepted the letters he received were different, noting one referred to a flat whereas the other referred to a house. It added this was due to an ongoing system error and apologised for this.
28. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman about these matters. In addition to the points already raised, he states the Council does not have a system in place which allows its teams to access and share information about service users’ reasonable adjustments, meaning it is failing in its duty to anticipate their needs. He also says he went without his assisted waste collection service for several weeks and expended a lot of effort trying to resolve this matter. Furthermore, he states that others have been affected by the Council’s failure to share details of its service users’ reasonable adjustments across its teams. Consequently, he wants it to implement a system that will rectify this situation.

Analysis

29. I understand the Council has already upheld Mr X’s complaint but I will review each part of it to ensure his concerns are addressed fully.
30. Firstly, it is clear the Council did not make the necessary reasonable adjustments in a timely manner when Mr X first contacted it in July 2018. He had to hasten the matter on a number of occasions before it was resolved and he received the information in a format he required. This is clearly fault.
31. The Council states that prior to July 2018, its Waste Services Team did not hold any information about the reasonable adjustments that Mr X required. I understand this information was held by other Council departments but it states it cannot share this type of information freely across teams because of several practical limitations.
32. I note the other Council departments that were aware of Mr X’s needs deal with matters relating to social services and council tax. Given that these departments are not linked to Waste Services, I do not expect it to have had access to this information. Nevertheless, when Mr X first established contact in July 2018 it should have acted quickly and proactively to resolve the matter, ensuring it listened to Mr X’s concerns. It should not have needed Mr X to raise the matter on repeat occasions, which is what happened. Moving forward, there is no excuse if it fails to properly consider Mr X’s needs again, given it is now aware of them.
33. The second part of Mr X’s complaint relates the level of assessment undertaken by the Council before it made the changes to its waste collection system. I understand it carried out a Quality Impact Assessment before implementing the proposed changes. I also note the problems experienced by Mr X resulted from an IT issue and affected others in his street. Moreover, I see the leaflet issued in July 2018 stated that those receiving assisted collections would continue to receive this service. Consequently, I am confident the problems that Mr X faced were due to an IT ‘glitch’ rather than a lack of planning.
34. Regarding the way the Council handled Mr X’s complaint, I see it took 27 working days to provide a stage one response rather than the 20 stipulated in its policy. The response was given at the beginning of October 2018 after Mr X had complained at the end of August and the Council did not inform him there would be a delay. Consequently, this is fault.
35. I note the stage two response provided in November 2018 contained inaccurate information, but at this stage the Council was unaware there was an IT problem and still thought Mr X stayed in a flat as this is what its records stated. This issue and misunderstanding was only resolved when Mr X emailed the Council two days later and pointed out he lived in a house, not a flat.

Injustice

36. In summary, the Council was at fault for not dealing with Mr X’s request for reasonable adjustments in a timely manner and the way it handled his complaint. It has already acted to remedy the personal injustice that was caused by these faults and has apologised for the inconvenience that it caused. I also see that Mr X’s collections have returned to normal and the wheelie bins have been removed, so I do not see any need to make any recommendations for a personal remedy.
37. However, I am concerned that some Council officers do not fully appreciate the importance of making reasonable adjustments when there is a need to do so. I understand they do receive training on this matter therefore they just need to be reminded of the Council’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Consequently, I have made a recommendation in the section that follows to address this issue.

Agreed action

38. The Council has agreed to send all officers in Waste Services a copy of the Ombudsman’s final decision about this complaint and stress the importance of making reasonable adjustments in a timely manner when there is a need to do so. It will do this within one month of the date of this final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

39. The Council was at fault for not dealing with Mr X’s request for reasonable adjustments in a timely manner and the way it handled his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman