Summary: We will not investigate Mr K’s complaint about the Council limiting him from taking part in a committee meeting. This is because neither the underlying matter nor the Council’s handling of his complaints about it caused him injustice which is serious and avoidable enough to warrant us investigating, and it would be reasonable for Mr K to apply to court on any question under the Equality Act 2010.

The complaint

1. Mr K is unhappy the Council limited his taking part in a council committee meeting about a housing policy the Council was about to adopt. Mr K says the policy discriminates unfairly and the Council denied him a full opportunity to put forward evidence from his own experiences. He is also unhappy about the way the Council handled his complaints on the matter including not adjusting its procedures to meet his disability needs in line with the Equality Act 2010. He says the Council has caused him avoidable time, effort, and distress in pursuing the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. But 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant, and discussed it with him.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. The complainant now has an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr K moved into settled accommodation adapted to meet his disability needs in 2023. The Council’s policy in his complaint is about temporary accommodation in meeting its homelessness duties. Whether the Council adopted the policy has not therefore had an effect on Mr K personally which we could consider to be an injustice.
9. I recognise Mr K wished to use his experience to help other people whom the proposed policy might affect in future. But it is not the Ombudsman’s role to investigate possible future injustice or complaints which are part of a campaign, organised or not.
10. Soon after the committee meeting the Council’s mayor called the policy in and put it on hold, so it did not come into effect as a result of the committee meeting procedure. What happened at the meeting has not resulted in something which affects Mr K.
11. We do not investigate the way a council handles complaints and correspondence about a matter if we are not investigating the matter itself. To do so would not be a good use of public money.
12. Mr K told me he had to take part in the relevant committee meeting remotely because of his disability. He says after he asked his first question the meeting Chair muted him so he could not ask any more, or provide the evidence he wanted. Mr K considers this was discrimination, caused solely because of his disability as those present in the room for the meeting could ask more than one question or make relevant comments. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether a council has met its duties under the Equality Act 2010 to adjust its procedures to meet the needs of people with a disability. That would be properly for the courts to consider.
13. I also recognise Mr K felt strongly enough about the underlying matters to pursue them, but that was a matter of his own choosing. It was not a necessary engagement with the Council to access services he needed. I am satisfied there would be no basis to investigate the injustice he claims.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because neither the underlying matter nor the Council’s handling of his complaints about it caused him injustice which is serious and avoidable enough to warrant it, and it would be reasonable for Mr K to pursue any claim of discrimination in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman