Summary: Ms X complained the Council repeatedly failed to adhere to agreed reasonable adjustments in the way it communicates with her. The Council was at fault for failing to make reasonable adjustments. This caused Ms X avoidable and aggravated frustration and distress. She was also put to time and effort complaining again. The Council agreed to apologise and provide a financial remedy for the injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to adhere to agreed reasonable adjustments in the way it communicates with her. She said the Council was still communicating with her in an illegible format.
2. Ms X said the Council was responsible for repeated breaches of agreed reasonable adjustments and she had to make repeated complaints to the Ombudsman.
3. Ms X said the Council’s offer of £100 was inadequate and does not reflect the severity or aggravated persistent nature of the discrimination she suffered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Ms X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. Ms X 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

10. 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 as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
11. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
12. 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.
13. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

What happened

14. I have summarised below some key events leading to Ms X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
15. Ms X needs written communication to be in large print due to her disability. The Ombudsman has made four previous findings of fault against the Council for failing to write to Ms X in large print (ref 21006085, ref 22012376, ref 23007765, and ref 23017707).
16. Ms X told us she wrote to the Council on 23 April 2024 making a Subject Access Request (SAR).
17. Ms X said she wrote to the Council to complain on 14 May 2024 because it did not respond to her SAR.
18. Miss X took her complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) on 5 June as she had still not received a response from the Council.
19. The ICO wrote to the Council in October 2024 telling it about Ms X’s SAR.
20. The Council’s Information Governance department wrote to Ms X 9 October 2024. It said it had no record of receiving Ms X’s SAR. It also had no record of Ms X’s complaint. It asked Ms X to re-submit her SAR. Unfortunately, the Council did not write to Ms X using large print.
21. Ms X complained to us about what she described as persistent, malicious disability discrimination by the Council which breached our earlier decisions.
22. Ms X told us she is under no obligation to keep reminding the Council of its agreement to provide letters in large print each time she communicates. She said it is incredibly challenging for her to raise complaints while experiencing debilitating and invasive symptoms.
23. We asked the Council to respond.
24. The Council provided a complaint response on 29 April 2025. It recognised it did not issue its letter dated 9 October 2024 in large print as needed. It recognised it failed to make reasonable adjustments on this occasion, and this caused Ms X distress and inconvenience. The Council apologised for its oversight. It said it appreciated its repeated failures to make reasonable adjustments caused further frustration and may have hindered Ms X’s ability to resolve the matter. It enclosed an amended copy of its letter dated 9 October in the correct format. It also offered Ms X £100 as a gesture of goodwill in recognition of the upset caused.
25. Ms X was not satisfied with the Council’s offer and asked us to investigate.
26. Ms X wrote to us in May 2025 about another letter she received from the Council in February 2025 that was not in large print. She asked us to consider this letter as part of her complaint, rather than having to raise a new complaint. Ms X said her condition is now life-threatening and her resilience to the Council’s conduct is lower than when the discrimination started.
27. The Council’s letter, which was from its Adult Social Care (ASC) service, said it received a referral about Ms X suggesting she may benefit from a care needs assessment. The letter was not in large print.
28. Ms X wrote to the Council’s planning service in August 2025 about a neighbouring planning application. This was during our investigation. Ms X asked the Council’s planning service to contact her in large print, due to her visual impairment.
29. The Council’s planning service wrote back to Ms X in September 2025. Unfortunately, it did not use large print as Ms X requested. Ms X therefore could not read the letter. Ms X asked us to add it to her ongoing complaint.

My investigation

30. The Council told me it has placed an alert on its casework system so any future cases Ms X raises will flag up the reasonable adjustments she needs. This casework system relates to complaints and information requests only. Not all Council departments and service areas use it.
31. The Council said it is exploring other options on alerting all departments and services about Ms X’s need for reasonable adjustments, to avoid a repeat of similar failings.
32. The Council told me its ASC service received an online referral about Ms X from a charity in January 2025. The ASC service tried to contact Ms X by telephone and then wrote to her with details of how to contact ASC if she needed help. The ASC service was not involved with Ms X since December 2023. Ms X had not made any previous complaints about the ASC service, and it was unaware of her need for reasonable adjustments.

Analysis

33. The Council accepted it failed to make reasonable adjustments for Ms X when its Information Governance department wrote to her in October 2024. That was fault. Ms X had made several previous complaints and information requests, so it should have been aware of her need for reasonable adjustments. This caused Ms X avoidable frustration and distress.
34. The Council’s ASC service wrote to Ms X following a third-party referral. I appreciate Ms X’s frustration at receiving another Council letter she could not read. I also appreciate Ms X should not have to tell the Council about her need for reasonable adjustments each time she makes contact. However, the ASC service had no knowledge of Ms X’s need for reasonable adjustments. Since Ms X was not in contact with the ASC service and not receiving ASC support there was no reason for the ASC service to hold this information. I therefore do not find the Council at fault in this regard.
35. Ms X’s letter to the Council’s planning service specifically asked for a response to be in large print due to a visual impairment. That should have been a straight forward reasonable adjustment for the planning service to make. The failure to do so was fault. This caused Ms X further avoidable frustration and distress.
36. It was very distressing for Ms X that each time she contacted a different Council service area it failed, or forgot to make, reasonable adjustments when responding to her requests. The fact this happened more than once, even after previous upheld complaints to the Ombudsman, has been even more frustrating for Ms X and added to the distress she previously suffered.
37. When assessing Ms X’s injustice, and a suitable remedy, I have considered our previous similar findings of fault and the impact of the Council’s repeated failures to make reasonable adjustments.
38. I must also consider our previous findings of fault related to the Council’s Benefits and Tax department. Whereas my findings of fault in this case relate to its Information Governance and Planning departments. I appreciate Ms X suffered repeated distress at receiving further letters she could not read since our previous investigations. However, we have not made earlier findings of fault against the Council departments subject to this investigation.
39. Nevertheless, I am satisfied the Council’s fault in this case caused Ms X significant, avoidable and aggravated distress and frustration. Ms X was also put to the time and effort of complaining again to get letters in the correct format.
40. I have seen evidence the Council put an alert on its case management system telling staff in its Complaints and Information Governance departments to correspond with Ms X by post and in large print. This should reduce the chance of these departments failing to make reasonable adjustments for Ms X in future.
41. However, as the Council confirmed, this alert does not extend across all Council services. The Council is considering ways of alerting all service areas, but it may not be possible for them all to create an alert specifically for Ms X. Some Council services or departments may never interact with Ms X, and would not need to keep personal information about her. Doing so could breach data protection rules, as any data stored should be for a specific, legitimate purpose and only kept as long as necessary. Data should not be kept ‘just in case’ it is needed in future.
42. The Council should remind its planning service, and all other departments, about the Council’s duty to consider and engage with all reasonable adjustment requests. Given Ms X has contacted different Council service areas and departments, and had similar problems, it appears there is a wider need for training on this issue across the Council.
43. Our remedies aim to put people back in the position they would have been if the fault had not happened. They are not intended to punish the organisation.
44. If, after considering things like service improvements, we identify there is still significant unremedied injustice arising from the fault we can ask the organisation to make a symbolic payment recognising the injustice the person suffered because of what the organisation did wrong. The recommended remedy reflects the repeated nature of the fault, Ms X’s vulnerability, and the aggravated injustice she suffered.

Back to top

Agreed Action

45. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
• Pay Ms X £500 in recognition of her significant, avoidable, and aggravated distress and frustration as well as the time and effort of complaining again.
46. Within ten weeks of my final decision the Council will take the following action to improve its services:
• Provide training or guidance to all staff across all departments on the Council’s duty to identify and engage with reasonable adjustment requests, how to identify when someone has an agreed reasonable adjustment, and how to meet this in every communication.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

48. I found the Council at fault for failing to make reasonable adjustments.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman