Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to make reasonable adjustments for people who attend an autism café. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for autistic people by holding its Autism Café in a noisy, open environment that is inaccessible to those with sensory sensitivities. He said this prevented his autistic husband from using the service. It caused Mr X frustration. He wants the Council to make reasonable adjustments for the café.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X said he and his husband attended the Autism Café. He said the café took place in a busy and noisy part of the library. Mr X said the sign which said “autism group” had been removed once all attendees had arrived. This meant others attending the library would not have been aware there was an autism café taking place. Mr X said a member of the public helped themselves to the refreshments which were meant for the Autism Café only. Mr X said his husband became overstimulated and could not attend the café again.
6. Mr X asked the Council to keep the sign up for the duration of the meeting. He also wanted the café to be held in the meeting room rather than on the open library floor.
7. Although the Council had not received any concerns since it started running the Autism Café two years ago, Mr X said some people with autism may not feel comfortable sharing their views face-to-face.
8. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council said:
• it had made reasonable adjustments for the café such as lighting and consistent meeting arrangements;
• it is open to keeping the sign up for the duration of the meeting;
• a volunteer who had supported the café had left. The Council’s library was trying to recruit a new volunteer however, it had not been able to do so just yet. As a result, sometimes there was no support to run the café. It apologised to Mr X that it had not communicated this with the group;
• it would move the café session to another time slot where there was sufficient staff to support the group which would address Mr X’s concerns;
• it accepted some people with autism may not feel comfortable with sharing their feedback face-to-face and so said it would arrange for an anonymised survey to be carried out;
• it explained it was not possible to secure the quiet meeting room ahead of the café. It said if the meeting room was free on the day, the café could take place in there; and
• any changes it would make to the café would need to benefit the whole group and not just an individual.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council considered Mr X’s concerns and made reasonable efforts to address them. It explained it would take further action to ensure the café was appropriately supported and informed Mr X the limitations on any changes it could make. We recognise Mr X remains unhappy however, the Council took appropriate action and so we cannot be critical of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman