Summary: The Council banned Mr X from a School in its area. The Council failed to invite Mr X to provide his version of the events that led to the ban. The Council should apologise to Mr X and invite him to provide his version of events.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council banned him from a school. Mr X says the Council did not contact him to ask for his version of events before implementing the ban and, in any case, does not have legal powers to enforce the ban.
2. Mr X says the Council has failed to properly investigate or respond to his complaint. Mr X also says the Council is aware he has dyslexia but has failed to make reasonable adjustments for him when dealing with him about this issue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I have spoken to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided to the Ombudsman. I have also made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. This includes documents from the School.
7. I have written to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

The Equality Act 2010

8. The Equality Act 2010 says an individual or organisation that provides a service to the public, such as councils, must not treat someone worse just because of one or more “protected characteristics”. Protected characteristics include people with disabilities including learning difficulties.
9. The law says an organisation must not do something to someone in a way that has a worse impact on them and other people who share a particular protected characteristic than it has on people who do not share that characteristic.
10. Service providers must not treat disabled people unfavourably because of something connected to their disability where they cannot show that what they are doing is objectively justified.
11. To make sure that a disabled person can use the service as far as is reasonable to the same standard as a non-disabled people the service provider must make reasonable adjustments.
12. A service provider is not allowed to wait until a disabled person wants to use its services, but must think in advance about what people with a range of impairments might reasonably need. They should consider the needs of people who have a visual impairment, a hearing impairment, a mobility impairment, a learning disability, for example.
13. Government guidance “Equality Act 2010: Summary Guidance on Services, Public Functions and Associations” says:

“Where a person has used the service provider’s services before, it will be unlawful to discriminate against them… if the actions of the service provider arise out of and are closely connected to the relationship that used to exist between them”.

14. If a person believes they have been discriminated against as a result of the actions of a service provider they may make a claim for damages in county court. However, government guidance says:

“Defending or taking a claim in court can be lengthy, expensive and draining. It can also have a damaging impact on the reputation of an organisation. It is likely to be in everyone’s interest to try to put things right before a claim is made to a court”.

The Education Act 1996

15. Section 547 of the 1996 Education Act 1996 says it is an offence for a person to be on school premises without permission and cause “nuisance or disturbance to the annoyance of persons who lawfully use those premises”.
16. The Council or the police can take action to remove a person from the premises concerned. This includes foundation and voluntary aided schools such as faith schools. The Council may only take action for an offence committed on the premises of a foundation or voluntary aided school with consent of the governing body.

What happened

17. Mr X lives near a faith school. Mr X received a parking ticket when parking near the school. Mr X says the school has CCTV cameras overlooking the area and so he visited the school’s office to ask for a copy of footage for the day he received a ticket.
18. Mr X says the school said there would be no issues providing him with the footage. Mr X says he told the school he was dyslexic and could not make the request in writing and the school were happy to assist.
19. Mr X says he did not receive the footage from the school and so he revisited the school on a number of occasions. Mr X says he felt like staff were being dismissive and so he handed in a formal request for the footage under the 1998 Data Protection Act. Mr X says the conversation became heated and he was asked to leave the premises. Mr X says the police were called and so he decided to wait until the police arrived. Mr X says he had a civil conversation with the police about what happened and left the premises.
20. Mr X says he received the CCTV footage a few days later.
21. The Council wrote to Mr X on 22 May 2018 to say he was banned from entering the school premises. The Council said Mr X was “rude and refused to leave the premises when requested”. The Council said this was “the culmination of a series of entries you have made to the school uninvited and include you entering the premises through safety doors without permission”. The Council went on to say the incident “took place where children and parents were present and your unreasonable behaviour in school is unacceptable and will not be tolerated”.
22. The Council said if Mr X continued to enter any part of the school premises it would seek an injunction in the County Court banning him from the premises.
23. Mr X denies acting in the way described in the Council’s letter and says there were no children or parents present at the time.
24. The Council says it sent the letter to Mr X banning him from the school because “evidence from the headteacher and witness statements was so compelling that the [Council] and the school needed to act swiftly to protect children, staff and visitors from the school. [Mr X] is not a parent so the need for discussion wasn’t really required”.
25. Mr X tried to contact the Council to discuss the matter using the number provided on the letter but was unable to speak to the relevant officer. Mr X then contacted the complaints department.
26. On 6 June 2018 the Council’s complaints department passed Mr X’s complaint to the education department for a response.
27. Mr X contacted the Council at the end of June 2018 to ask for an update. The Council’s complaints department asked the education department to contact Mr X. The complaints department advised the education department that Mr X was dyslexic and so “a written response is not always the best method of contact”.
28. The officer who wrote the letter to Mr X banning him from the School spoke to him by telephone on 26 June 2018. The officer advised Mr X that he was not on a database or list and the purpose of the ban was to prevent him from accessing the School. Mr X explained he disputed the School’s version of events and said the Council did not have the power to ban him from the School. The officer advised Mr X he was speak with him further the following day.
29. The officer e-mailed Mr X again on 17 August 2018. The officer asked to meet with Mr X to discuss his complaint. The officer said he recognised “the difficulties of email communication and that is why I suggest that we meet”. The officer said Mr X had wanted to speak to the Ombudsman before speaking to the officer again.
30. Mr X says he is unhappy the same officer who wrote the letter banning him from the school was also investigating his complaint. He felt the officer could not be impartial.
31. The Council says it did not hear from Mr X again after the e-mail of 17 August 2018 and so it could not progress the complaint. The Council says Mr X advised it that he was seeking advice from the Ombudsman and a lawyer before agreeing to a meeting.
32. The Council never responded to Mr X’s complaint. It says this is because Mr X told it he was taking his complaint to the Ombudsman.

My findings

Decision to ban Mr X from the School

33. The Council was legally entitled to ban Mr X from the School. However, the Council should have given Mr X an opportunity to respond to allegations made against him. Failure to do so was fault.
34. There would have been no fault in the Council imposing a ban whilst it gave Mr X an opportunity to comment on evidence provided by the School and to provide his own version of events and any evidence he may have. However, the Council’s letter gave Mr X no opportunity to do so nor any mechanism by which to challenge the decision.
35. The Council’s letter makes a number of factual statements. These are based on second hand evidence in the form of statements made by the School. This is fault. The Council was entitled to set out the evidence it had received but it should not have stated this as being definitive without giving Mr X the opportunity to comment on it.
36. The Council is also at fault for failing to set a clear review date for the ban. The Ombudsman would expect a council or public body to review any ban or service restrictions after a set period of time (e.g. 12 months).
37. Even is the Council had acted without fault it seems likely he would still have been put to some time and trouble dealing with the matter. On balance I believe this would be at a similar level to what he has experienced in any case.
38. However, the way the Council dealt with the matter and the way it put accusations to Mr X will have caused him some distress. I have considered the fact he would have experienced some distress in any case as a result of what happened but the accusatory nature of the letter will have increased this.

Reasonable adjustments

39. Mr X is unhappy the Council sent him a letter banning him from the School. Mr X is in contact with a number of Council departments who have agreed to make reasonable adjustments for him due to his dyslexia. Mr X prefers telephone or face to face contact to explain the content of any written correspondence before it is sent.
40. The Equality Act 2010 requires the Council to anticipate the needs of people who may need to access its services. The Council has a number of different departments and service areas. It might be good practice for a Council to have a single system that records a person’s contacts with all departments and service areas but failure to have such a system is not fault.
41. I would expect each service area within the Council to keep a record of reasonable adjustments agreed with service users in line with data retention policies. This avoids the need for service users to have to request these each time they contact the service area.
42. The children’s services department had no prior dealings with Mr X and so I would not expect them to have known of the need to make reasonable adjustments when it contacted him. The Equality Act 2010 says organisations should anticipate the needs of people who might need to use a service but I cannot see the Council could have anticipated Mr X’s needs. The School did not share Mr X’s request for reasonable adjustments.
43. When Mr X made a complaint about the letter, the Council’s complaints department identified that it had prior dealings with Mr X and advised the Children’s Services Department of this.
44. The children’s services department did send Mr X e-mails about his complaints but this was after it had spoken with him. This is in line with reasonable adjustments Mr X requests and so there is no fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s need for reasonable adjustments.

Handling of the complaint

45. There was a delay of approximately two weeks in the Council dealing with the complaint. The complaints team chased the children’s services department as it was unclear who was dealing with the complaint. Although this falls short of good practice this is not at a level where I would make a finding of fault.
46. When the children’s services department began dealing with the complaint there were delays in Mr X and the Council officer being available to speak to one another. Ultimately Mr X decided to bring his complaint directly to the Ombudsman. Whilst I may have been good practice for the Council to have responded to Mr X’s complaint based on the information it had I can also understand why it did not do so as Mr X had decided to pursue the complaint with the Ombudsman. Therefore, there is no fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint.

Agreed action

47. Following my recommendations, the Council has agreed to take the following action to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X as a result off the fault I have identified:
• Telephone Mr X to apologise for the accusatory nature of the letter and failure to give him an opportunity to provide his version of events. The Council should follow this up with a written apology.
• Invite Mr X to provide his version of events verbally and provide any other evidence he considers relevant and review the decision to ban him from the School.
• If the Council decides the ban should remain in place it should set a date when it will review the ban and ensure this review takes place.
48. The Council should take this action within 8 weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault causing injustice. The action I have recommended is a suitable way to remedy this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman