Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments to enable him to access its services. We find the Council was at fault for failing to make reasonable adjustments. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained the Council failed to make agreed reasonable adjustments to enable him to access its services. Specifically, it would not take his complaint by telephone, failed to follow up written communication by telephone and then failed to respond by telephone to his contacts.
2. Mr B says the Council’s failure to do what was agreed caused him frustration and put him to unnecessary time and trouble. He also says it affected his mental health.

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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 considered information Mr B submitted with his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
6. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Reasonable adjustments

7. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service at, or as close as possible to, the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
8. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to people accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
9. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

10. Mr B contacted the Council’s trading standards department in February 2021 about vehicles he bought from a car dealer that he believed were wrongly advertised or faulty.
11. An officer (Officer A) spoke to Mr B on the telephone about his concerns. He noted on the file that Mr B has a written communication disability. Mr B can understand written communication, but he requires telephone calls to provide his comments.
12. Officer A continued to speak with Mr B on the telephone over the next month.
13. The Council assigned a different officer (Officer B) to the case in April. Mr B emailed the Council and said he wanted to complain about Officer B and his conduct. He said as a reasonable adjustment he wanted someone to call him to discuss his complaint.
14. The Council assumed a third party was writing a formal complaint on Mr B’s behalf, and so did not call him to discuss his complaint.
15. Mr B emailed the Council and explained he wanted a telephone call. The Council then spoke to Mr B on the telephone about his complaint.
16. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint by email. It apologised that it misunderstood his request for a telephone call to discuss his complaint. It did not uphold the other parts of his complaint.
17. Mr B did not receive the Council’s letter and so chased for a response. He also asked for a telephone call.
18. The Council responded and re-sent its previous letter. It said it could not call Mr B at the time he wanted, but its letter covered the key points.
19. Mr B repeated his request for a telephone call and said the Council’s response did not cover all his points. The Council replied and said it was reviewing his correspondence.
20. The Council emailed Mr B two weeks later and said it would not look at his complaint further. It said its stage one response covered everything.
21. The Council emailed Mr B again in September and said following a senior management review, it was satisfied it properly responded to his concerns and the outcome would not change following a further review.
22. Mr B remained dissatisfied and so spoke to an officer to discuss his concerns. He said the Council had discriminated against him by sending written communication and it had failed to discuss his complaint over the telephone.
23. The Council responded and said although it had not discriminated against Mr B, it did not follow up written responses with a telephone call. It also apologised some email communication did not include officers direct telephone numbers.
24. Mr B asked the Council to review its response.
25. The Council issued its final response to Mr B’s complaint. It said throughout the complaints process several officers could have provided extra telephone contact to provide updates and note any further concerns he had. It said it had to ensure responses to complaints were put in writing to allow complainants to seek third party advice. It said it was aware Mr B’s disability did not extend to reading written communication and it had not removed the tools for him to contact it by telephone. Finally, it said it appreciated he had to chase up officers for responses to telephone calls. It apologised for this.
26. Mr B remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

27. The Council has accepted it should have done more to follow up its written responses with telephone calls. It also accepted Mr B did not always receive a response to his telephone calls and some of its officers should have provided a direct contact telephone number. It has apologised for the frustration caused but says it did not prevent Mr B from contacting it.
28. While I welcome the Council’s apologies, I do not consider its response properly reflects Mr B’s injustice. Mr B made it clear he wanted a telephone call to discuss the Council’s initial response to his complaint. Despite this, and Mr B’s difficulties with written communication being on the file, the Council failed to call him and instead said it would not consider his complaint further. The Council says it did not prevent Mr B from contacting it, but its response was effectively shutting him out of the complaints process. The Council said its stage one response covered everything, but it had not called Mr B to understand what he believed was wrong or to clarify its response.
29. The Council also wrote to Mr B again in September and said it would not consider his complaint further, but there is no evidence it called him first to better understand his concerns.
30. I also find the Council’s records on what reasonable adjustments Mr B needed should have been clearer. The Council noted Mr B’s difficulties with written communication, but this is not specific enough and it does not set out what it needed to do ensure he could access its services.
31. The Council’s faults have caused Mr B a significant injustice as he was put to time and trouble in chasing the Council and following up its written communication by telephone. It also caused him frustration and distress due to the lack of regard the Council showed to his reasonable adjustments. The Council needs to take further action to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 8 July 2022 the Council has agreed to:

• Issue a further apology to Mr B.
• Pay Mr B £150 for his time and trouble, frustration, and distress.

33. By 5 August 2022:

• Issue written reminders to relevant officers to ensure they understand their obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to provide reasonable adjustments.
• Review its systems and procedures to ensure any reasonable adjustments agreed with customers are specific and properly recorded.

Back to top

Final decision

34. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr B an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman