Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his reasonable adjustments needs. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify a further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not considered whether its automated telephone answering system disadvantages him under the Equality Act 2010.
2. He said going through an automated answering system before speaking to an advisor has a negative mental impact on him due to his disabilities.
3. Mr X also said the Council should recognise his accessibility needs and make the necessary reasonable adjustments. He said this includes the choice to bypass the automated answering system during office hours when advisors are available.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 (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 Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. 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 the Council has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault with the Council’s consideration of his reasonable adjustments needs. The evidence available shows the Council properly took Mr X’s reasonable adjustment needs into account for the telephone answering system.
9. The Council said it listened to Mr X’s call to check why he had difficulty using the automated system. It said Mr X did not engage with the automated system when it asked him to say which department he wanted to speak to.
10. The Council said it then tested its telephone system to check if it was working. It said it used the prompts that Mr X would have had to use, and the system directed the call to the correct team.
11. The Council also sent Mr X links to its accessibility website which contains information about its automated system, including the option to speak to the switchboard operator.
12. It also advised Mr X of other ways he could contact them if he had trouble using the automated system due to any accessibility issues. The choices include webchat, visiting a Council office or via email.
13. The evidence available shows Mr X advised the Council he does not want to use the automated system during office hours but is willing to use it after office hours.
14. The Council therefore advised him that it cannot remove the automated system as a reasonable adjustment simply because he prefers to speak to an advisor during office hours.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of faut with the Council’s consideration of his reasonable adjustment needs to justify a full investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman