Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not have regard for its equality duties when implementing a scheme for people attending its theatre with their carers. Mr X also complains the Council did not properly address his concerns through its complaints procedure. We have not found the Council at fault for failing to consider the impact on individuals when devising its scheme. We have found fault in the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has put in place a policy that discriminates against disabled people with carers. Mr X says it is harder for disabled people with carers to book theatre tickets than it is for non-disabled people.
2. Mr X says the Council’s policy does not have regard for the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and says the Council failed to address his concerns through its complaints procedure. This caused Mr X unnecessary frustration, inconvenience and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered information he provided.
6. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries.
7. Both Mr X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Public Sector Equality Duty

8. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:
• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
9. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations in the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of events

10. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every interaction between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the analysis section of this decision statement.
11. Mr X’s complaint concerns his visit to a theatre operated by a Council-owned company, Company B. As Company B manages and delivers the Council’s culture and leisure services, including operating the theatre on the Council’s behalf, the Council is responsible for its actions. I therefore refer to “the Council” in this statement, including when describing actions taken by Company B.
12. In September 2022, Mr X complained to the Council about his experience when he visited the theatre. In his complaint, Mr X:
1. highlighted information published on the Council’s website that said carers of disabled patrons could attend a show for free.
2. said he had spoken with the Council twice when booking his tickets and had clearly said he would need to attend with carers when confirming arrangements.
3. said on the day of the show, Mr X found he had been charged the full price of the ticket and spoke with staff to resolve this. Mr X says he was told the concessionary rate was for locals only. He said he was told he would have needed to apply in advance for the concession and wait 14 days to be registered.
4. said he was not told of the scheme when booking and, in any event, could not have applied, as it was less than 14 days from the date of the show. Mr X said he did not understand how the Council’s policy was fair and said it contradicted other information published on its website.
13. The Council replied to Mr X’s complaint. In its response, the Council:
1. said it had a membership scheme for people who could not attend without a carer. It said people had to apply to join this scheme and the process could take up to 14 days.
2. said applicants had to meet relevant criteria, intended to help the Council manage applications fairly and meet audit requirements.
3. said the box office would not make presumptions, so people needed to make clear their requirement for an essential carer when booking.
14. Mr X said he had been clear he would be attending with a carer and had not been advised of the Access scheme at any point. He said the Council’s reply contradicted information published on its website, which stated it was necessary only to show proof of eligibility at the box office on attendance, which was what Mr X had done. Mr X said he did not live locally so it would have been unreasonable, possibly discriminatory, to expect him to take this step sooner.
15. Mr X also said information on the Access scheme was difficult to locate and those eligible for other concessionary fares, such as those over 65 or those unemployed, did not have to register. He queried whether the scheme was discriminatory.
16. The Council provided a further response. It said it had reviewed the call Mr X made to book the tickets and Mr X had mentioned he would be attending with a carer. The Council said Mr X could have been told about the Access scheme at that point. The Council also said it was the person’s responsibility to apply for the scheme and demonstrate eligibility. The Council offered a credit refund for the cost of the ticket, to be used against another booking.
17. Mr X said the Council had not addressed his concerns about the Access scheme and said the credit-refund was not sufficient, as he would not be returning to the theatre again.
18. Mr X referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Council’s Access registration scheme

19. The Ombudsman’s powers with regards to the Equality Act 2010 are set out in paragraph 4. We can consider whether the Council can demonstrate it had considered the impact on individuals when devising and implementing the scheme.
20. Responding to my enquiries, the Council said the Access scheme was implemented in 2018. Before this happened, the Council carried out a benchmarking exercise, by reviewing the schemes already in place in comparable locations and adapting its own scheme to suit local considerations. The Council said its scheme was reviewed internally by its disabilities officer, who provided feedback and helped make changes. I have seen a copy of correspondence from this time, discussing practical ways to implement the scheme and comparing it to others already in place.
21. I consider this demonstrates the Council considered the appropriateness and practicality of its own scheme when designing it. I have not therefore found the Council at fault.
22. The Council said it had not carried out an equality impact assessment on the scheme, but would be carrying out these assessments on all its concession schemes due to feedback it received on this complaint.
23. It is not a requirement for councils to carry out equality impact assessments. I welcome the Council’s proposal to assess this scheme in this way, as well as the other concession schemes it operates, as it is best practice to have ongoing reviews of existing policies.

Mr X’s experience and the Council’s complaint handling

24. Mr X explained he was not told about the Access scheme when he booked his tickets by phone, despite informing the Council at that point he would be attending with a carer. Mr X was also given incorrect information when he attended, being told the discounted rate was only available for those living locally. He also highlighted it was difficult to locate details of the Access scheme online, once he was informed of it, and raised concerns about whether the scheme was potentially discriminatory.
25. The Council acknowledged Mr X was not told about the scheme when he booked his tickets, but did not address Mr X’s concern about being provided incorrect information. It said it was Mr X’s responsibility as the customer to apply for the relevant concession and demonstrate eligibility. It did not address Mr X’s concern about discrimination.
26. Information about concessions published under the terms and conditions on the Council’s website says the theatre operates a “carer goes free” policy. The current version of the website says to provide proof of eligibility at the box office to claim. It also says to see the Access membership policy for further details, though there is no direct link to the Access scheme in this section of the site.
27. Older versions of the website viewed as part of this investigation do not mention the Access membership scheme in the terms and conditions section. On a balance of probabilities, I consider it likely Mr X viewed an older version of the website when he researched booking tickets and so would have been unaware of the Access scheme. Instead, he booked his tickets with the Council directly and relied on the guidance given to present proof of eligibility at the box office.
28. Considering the above, I have found the Council at fault for not addressing the substantive points in Mr X’s complaint. The Access scheme was not well publicised or readily accessible on the Council’s website. It is difficult to see how Mr X and others who needed to register for it would have been aware of the need to do so at the time. Similarly, the conflicting information Mr X received from staff at different points of booking suggests the process and criteria were not uniformly understood or applied by the staff administering it. The Council also did not address Mr X’s concerns about whether the scheme was discriminatory in its final complaint response.
29. This fault caused Mr X an injustice. When responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council had an opportunity to address his substantive concerns, perhaps mitigating or avoiding the need for Mr X to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman. Mr X has been put to unnecessary time and trouble in doing so.
30. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed it would reimburse Mr X the cost of one ticket. I consider this goodwill gesture presents a partial remedy for Mr X, but does not fully address the avoidable time and trouble he experienced.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise in writing to Mr X for the faults and injustice identified in this statement;
2. repeat its offer to refund Mr X the cost of his ticket;
3. pay Mr X a further £100 in recognition of the avoidable time and trouble he experienced in pursuing his complaint;
4. remind relevant staff about the Access scheme criteria and of the need to make eligible people aware of it during the booking process; and
5. update the information published on the terms and conditions section of its website, so the Access scheme can be more easily located by those who may need to use it.
32. Within 12 weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has carried out equality impact assessments on each of the concession schemes it operates. I commend the Council for proactively proposing to take this step.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman