Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s request to discuss its neurodiversity policy. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X describes himself as neurodivergent. He complains about the Council’s handling of his request to discuss the Council’s neurodiversity policy.

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. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X contacted the Council to ask whether it had a neurodiversity policy for staff interacting with service users. He asked to speak with the officer who wrote the policy. He said this was because he had experienced distressing incidents when dealing with the Council as someone who was neurodivergent.
9. A Senior Officer in the Council’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion team arranged a meeting with Mr X to discuss his concerns.
10. After the meeting, Mr X complained to the Council that the meeting did not meet his expectations.
11. The Council was under no duty to discuss its policies with Mr X, but it took steps to do so. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
12. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s handling of the discussion during the meeting. He says it failed to meet his communication needs. He complained the Officer decided his neurodiversity was a disability, instead of recognising his profound ability.
13. Under the Equality Act 2010, councils are under a positive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to Disabled people accessing their services. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them. In its reply to Mr X’s complaint, the Council clearly explained how it considered its duties under the Equality Act. It described how it applied these in its communications with him. The Council has evidenced how it had due regard to its duty to make reasonable adjustments. We cannot otherwise question its decision-making. For these reasons, there is not enough evidence of fault and any injustice claimed by Mr X is not significant enough to justify investigating.
14. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint so far as it is about the possible impact of Council policies on other service users with neurodiverse conditions. The law prevents us from investigating such complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s request to discuss its neurodiversity policy. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman