Summary: Mr X complains the Council withdrew recognition of him as a representative in October 2021 without good reason. He also complains the Council refused to investigate his complaints under the corporate complaints procedure and refused to investigate his complaint against the chief executive. We find no fault with the way the Council decided it would not recognise Mr X as an advocate or representative. There is also no fault with the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaints.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council had accepted and recognised him as a representative helping individuals with their dealings with the Council. He complains the Council withdrew recognition in October 2021 without good reason. Mr X feels the Council has treated him unfavourably because of his disability. Mr X also complains the Council refused to investigate his complaints under the corporate complaints procedure and refused to investigate his complaint against the chief executive for corporate failures.

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. 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. 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

5. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. In 2014, the Ombudsman investigated a complaint by Mr X that the Council did not accept him as an advocate. Our decision noted the Council had raised concerns about Mr X’s role, noting his lack of training, disclosure and barring checks, and insurance. We highlighted the Council’s position was that it accepted Mr X as a “friend” or supporter to those he helps.
9. In July 2015, we issued our decision noting the Council was entitled to contact the people Mr X was helping directly, rather than through him. We also found no fault with the Council for expressing its concerns and views about Mr X’s role.

What happened

10. Mr X considers himself to be a community advocate/representative. He says he helps individuals with their issues and dealings with the Council. Mr X says he get the consent of the individuals to act as their representative.
11. In October 2021, the Council wrote to Mr X to raise its concerns about his role and the fact he had referred to himself as an ‘official advocate’. The Council confirmed its position had not changed and the Council did not recognise him as an advocate due to concerns about his training, disclosure and barring checks, and insurance. The Council also noted Mr X was not acting in a certified advocacy role and not employed by an advocacy agency.
12. The Council also restated its position that it only recognised him as a “friend”/ peer support and this role was to provide emotional support to the individuals who specifically ask he attend. The Council confirmed that it would only deal directly with the individual concerned, and not through him.
13. The Council told Mr X it was not placing any restrictions on him but reiterated it would not take any instructions from Mr X on behalf of third parties, including those he supports as a friend/peer support. The Council said Mr X could continue to support individuals, who wished him to, as a friend/peer support.
14. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed the following:
• It did not recognise Mr X as an advocate. Its reasons remain the same as those outlined to the Ombudsman during our investigation in 2014.
• It did not recognise Mr X as a representative in the sense of one who represents or stands in the place of another under authority recognised by law. Such as power of attorney or a parent with parental rights.
• It did recognise Mr X as a friend or peer supporter. The Council noted this role was limited to providing emotional support to an individual who were going through a process with the Council.
• The Council will accommodate requests, where possible, for an individual to have a friend or supporter to accompany them to meetings. However, communication will always be directly with the individual that is receiving the service.
15. The Council also explained it sent its letters in October 2021 because Mr X was giving instructions to officers without these instructions coming from the individual receiving the service. The Council said this caused the cases to become confused and overly complicated. The Council said it wanted to clearly define the role of a friend/supporter and to make it clear he and could not instruct the Council on behalf of the individual.
16. Mr X said the Council had accepted a member of the public as an advocate/representative in other cases. The Council said the member of the public Mr X referred to was known to the Council and was a member of a project group. The Council said the member of the public has not acted as an advocate but has acted as a friend and peer supporter to individuals during meetings. The Council said this was when individuals had asked him to act in that role for emotional support.

Complaint handling

17. In August 2021, Mr X asked the Council to provide him with some documents used by the Council’s housing service. The Council acknowledged the request and advised it would treat the information as a freedom of information request.
18. Mr X was unhappy with the response and asked to raise a complaint against the Council’s chief executive and a director. Mr X said the complaint was due their failure to ensure Council staff behaved in a manner fitting of a public officer. Mr X later added another complaint about the actions of a staff member towards an individual he was supporting.
19. The Council responded to Mr X’s freedom of information complaint within a week. The Council told Mr X it was appropriate to deal with his enquiry as a freedom of information request as it meant he would receive the information in a timely manner and to ensure the request for information was not lost within the day to day demands of the service.
20. The Council also declined to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s chief executive and director. The Council said it would ask the service to respond to his complaint about the staff member first. The Council signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman if he was unhappy with the decision.
21. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint about the staff member in September 2021. The Council said the officer had acted in line with the instructions given by the individual Mr X was supporting. The Council also confirmed it had received no complaint from the individual themselves. The Council signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman.
22. The Council provided Mr X with a final response as to its position on recognising him as an advocate/representative in October 2021. The Council signposted Mr X to complain to the Ombudsman if he was unhappy with the decision.

Analysis

23. The Council has confirmed its position that it has never recognised Mr X as an advocate or representative. Instead, it recognised Mr X as a friend or peer supporter. This was a limited role, mainly one to provide emotional support to an individual during meetings. The Council has explained this to Mr X.
24. It is at the Council’s discretion to decide who to accept as a suitable advocate or representative for individuals. As the Council has provided Mr X with clear reasons about why it does not recognise him as an advocate or representative, we cannot find fault with the Council’s decision.
25. Mr X says the Council has accepted another member of the public as an advocate and representative. There is no evidence to support Mr X’s view. This is because the Council has confirmed the member of the public takes on the role of a friend or peer supporter during meetings. This is the same role the Council recognises for Mr X.
26. Therefore, the Council has not treated Mr X any differently compared to others. There is no evidence to suggest Mr X has been treated unfavourably due to his disability. We also note the Council has not prevented Mr X from taking on the role of a friend or peer supporter to individuals who ask for him to be so.
27. While we acknowledge Mr X has a strong view on what his role is when supporting individuals, this is not the same view the Council takes. The Council has appropriately advised Mr X it will not take any instruction from him and that it will deal directly with the individuals instead. We consider the Council is entitled to decide to contact the people Mr X is helping directly, rather than through him or to accept instructions from him.

Consideration of the complaints.

28. There is evidence the Council has dealt with Mr X’s complaints about its decision not to recognise him as an advocate. The Council also appropriately signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman. Therefore, we do not consider there was any fault with how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint.
29. There is evidence the Council declined to investigate Mr X’s complaints about the chief executive and director. The Council provided Mr X with its reasons and explained it would respond to his complaint at service level.
30. We consider this was a proportionate approach given Mr X’s complaint was about a particular service and about an individual officer within the service. Therefore, it was practical for the service to respond to the complaint first.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I find no fault with the way the Council decided it would not recognise Mr X as an advocate and representative. There is also no fault with the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman