Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council considered his complaints. We do not consider a failure in the complaint process alone to have caused Mr X a personal injustice which is so significant that it warrants investigation. Also, we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way it considered his request for reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. Finally, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner if he believes the Council is withholding information which he is entitled to receive.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council dealt with his combined complaints under stage two of its complaints procedure instead of waiting for him to submit a combined complaint. He says this removed his right to equal participation under the Equality Act. He also says the Council ignored his rights under the Equality Act.
2. Mr X also says he is seeking the release of unredacted documents relating to his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says he deliberately filed his complaints in a sporadic way, so they were placed on the record and preserved while he worked on a combined complaint covering all his concerns. He says the Council confirmed it would hold his complaints until he was ready to pursue them.
8. However, in November 2024, the Council told Mr X that it would review all the representations he had made so far and consider whether it could wait for him to present a combined complaint.
9. In January 2025, the Council wrote to Mr X stating that an officer had asked him to collate his multiple emails so the Council could respond. It further stated Mr X had explained that he would not be able to do so. However, he had then complained about the Council’s decision that it is “a reasonable adjustment for the Council to review the complaints and bring them within grouped areas that enabled a cohesive structured response.”
10. The Council summarised Mr X’s complaints. As the matter was complex, the Council decided to deal with the complaint at stage two of its complaint process and issued a final, 18-page response to Mr X’s concerns.
11. Mr X says this deprived him of his right to make his own complaint and have the matter considered at stages one and two of the complaint process.
12. However, the Council gave a detailed response to Mr X’s complaints. He could have complained to the Ombudsman if he was not satisfied with the Council’s responses to the specific concerns he raised. However, he did not. His complaint to us is solely concerned with the Council’s collation of his multiple concerns, the decision to deal with them in a single stage two complaint and the alleged ignoring of his rights under the Equality Act.
13. I understand Mr X has ADHD and considers the Council ignored his rights under the Equality Act.
14. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any organisation 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. From the information I have seen the Council asked Mr X to collate his complaints and gave him extended time to provide it. It appears the Council asked Mr X several times to collate his numerous complaints into one document so that it could provide a cohesive response. When he did not do so, it decided to combine his complaints and issue a single stage two response. Therefore, I cannot agree the Council ignored Mr X’s rights under the Equality Act.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We do not consider the Council’s decision to collate his multiple complaints and issue a single stage two response to cause a personal injustice that is so significant that it justifies an investigation.
• We have not seen enough evidence of the Council ignoring Mr X’s rights under the Equality Act; and
• It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the information Commissioner if he believes the Council is withholding information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman