Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communications with Mr X. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council discriminated against him on grounds of disability and has not provided suitable redress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X phoned the Council to ask for a copy of a birth certificate. He asked for adjustments to its service and an email follow up on his request. The Council says it does not have a recording of the call. It says it offered to help Mr X complete an online application or he could access its services face to face. It did not recall offering an email.
7. I will not investigate this complaint as there is not enough evidence the Council agreed to email Mr X then failed to do so. Where it is one person’s word against the other we cannot make a finding on what happened. I will also not investigate because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s request for adjustments. The Council suggested other ways for Mr X to access it services and so showed regard for its duties. Further, and in any event, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, noting Mr X can access the Council’s services in other ways.
8. Mr X says he then tried to complain by phone, was refused and hung up on, though later that day he did complain by phone. The Council accepts its officer did not follow the correct process on the first call and says they have been given training to prevent recurrence. The Council’s investigation found the call disconnected, but not through its officer action. I will not investigate this complaint as any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, noting Mr X could make a verbal complaint the same day.
9. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response to his complaint. However, it is not proportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman