Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the Council has provided a proportionate remedy for her injustice. An investigation would not achieve more for Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council breached the Equality Act 2010 as it failed to make her requested reasonable adjustments. Miss X also complains that the Council failed to meet its safeguarding duties. Miss X considers the remedy of £600 offered by the Council does not reflect the severity of the distress and harm caused by the Council’s actions.

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 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))
3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X made a homelessness application. She complained to the Council that it had failed to make her requested reasonable adjustments when dealing with her application. She also complained that officers failed to respond to her with empathy or provide support when she reported she was in distress. Miss X also complained about the tone of a conversation with an officer and that the Council failed to clearly explain housing charges. She said the Council’s actions had caused significant distress and harmed her mental health.
7. The Council considered Miss X’s complaint through its two stage complaints procedure. The Council upheld all Miss X’s complaints at stage two. It apologised for impact of the faults on Miss X. The Council also said it would explore additional needs with new homelessness applicants to ensure their needs were met.
8. In response, Miss X asked the Council to make a compensation payment to remedy the significant distress caused to her. She also raised that the Council failed to take action to safeguard her under the Care Act 2014 when she disclosed her distress.
9. The Council offered a payment of £200 to Miss X. It increased the offer to £600. Miss X declined the offer as she considered it did not reflect the severity of the distress caused to her.
10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. The Council’s offer of £600 is an appropriate and proportionate remedy to acknowledge the distress caused to Miss X. It is at the upper end of what we generally recommend for distress, so it is in accordance with our guidance on remedies. The Council also agreed to make service improvements to address its failure to make reasonable adjustments for Miss X. An investigation of Miss X’s complaint, including whether the Council should have taken action to safeguard her, is unlikely to achieve any more.

Back to top

Final Decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the Council offered an appropriate and proportionate remedy to Miss X and an investigation is unlikely to achieve more for her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman