Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments to help him challenge a penalty charge notice he received. We found there was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to engage with Mr X about his request for reasonable adjustments. The Council cancelled the penalty charge notice, made service improvements, and agreed to provide Mr X a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments to help him challenge a penalty charge notice (PCN) he received.
2. Mr X struggles to get his point across in writing due to his learning disability and dyslexia. He asked for reasonable adjustments to help him challenge the PCN, but he said the Council ignored his request. This caused frustration and distress. Mr X said he was put to significant time and trouble contacting the Council asking for help.
3. While Mr X was generally pleased with the actions the Council took in response to his complaint, he does not consider the Council recognised the time and inconvenience he was put to, or the distress he 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. Mr 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

9. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
10. Direct discrimination occurs when a person treats another less favourably than they treat or would treat others because of a protected characteristic.
11. Indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.

What happened

15. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
16. The Council issued Mr X a PCN on 17 December 2022. Around the same time, the Council also issued Mr X a second PCN.
17. Mr X emailed the Council on 20 December 2022. He said he was confused by the PCN process. He asked for reasonable adjustments to help him challenge the PCN, due to his learning disability. He said he looked at the reasonable adjustments page on the Council’s website, but it was blank.
18. Mr X emailed the Council again on 23 January 2023. He said he requested a phone call as a reasonable adjustment but had not got one.
19. Mr X then emailed a local councillor asking for their help.
20. Mr X chased the councillor in May 2023. He said he was not well and had made them aware of his disability, yet they did not support him.
21. The councillor’s office emailed Mr X in July 2023. It asked him to set out the problem by email and they would forward it to the Council’s complaints department. Mr X said he needed a phone call as a reasonable adjustment, due to his learning disability. He said it was too much to explain in writing.
22. Mr X complained to the Council on 8 September 2023. He asked it to pause further action, such as the enforcement agents it instructed.
23. The Council sent its stage one complaint response on 14 September 2023. It said the complaints process cannot be used to challenge a PCN. It said that, as Mr X did not pay or send representations, the Council progressed the PCN. The Council said it followed the correct statutory process.
24. Mr X emailed the Council asking about his request for reasonable adjustments.
25. The Council confirmed it placed his case with the enforcement agents on hold. It asked Mr X for documented evidence to support his request for reasonable adjustments.
26. Mr X asked why the Council failed to provide adjustments for over ten months. He said he was not complaining about the PCN, but about the fact the Council failed to provide reasonable adjustments so he could challenge the PCN, which was his right.
27. The Council said Mr X’s email in December 2022, asking for assistance, went to the wrong address for challenging a PCN. Because of this, the Council progressed the case. To assist further, the Council asked Mr X for medical evidence to support his reasonable adjustment request.
28. Mr X said the Council needed to uphold his complaint and could not just brush it off with an apology.
29. An officer told Mr X the Council was upholding his complaint but, as per earlier correspondence, he needed to provide medical evidence in support of his request for reasonable adjustments. The Council would then review this accordingly.
30. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two.
31. The Council sent its stage two complaint response on 8 November 2023.
32. The Council accepted it failed to act upon Mr X’s request for reasonable adjustments when it received a copy of his email to a local councillor in January 2023. While the Council later asked for medical evidence, it recognised it did not ask Mr X what reasonable adjustments he needed. It apologised for the inconvenience, distress, and upset caused.
33. As a gesture of goodwill, the Council rescinded the two PCN’s and cancelled enforcement action. The Council recognised it should have considered Mr X’s reasonable adjustments when he originally raised the issue.
34. Going forward, the Council said people with literacy issues will have two options. First, they can contact the Council’s call centre and an officer will take their challenge by telephone. Second, the PCN section of the Council’s website has a function which can write a challenge for someone, based on their responses to a series of questions about the PCN. This method can also be edited and personalised before someone submits their challenge.

My investigation

35. Mr X told me he feels the Council discriminated against him. He wanted the Council to acknowledge the extra time it took him to make contact, because of his disability. He also wanted recognition of the significant distress he felt when the Council did not help.
36. Mr X said, because of his dyslexia, he feels people do not understand him. Writing is complicated. He cannot write things down in the same way as he speaks. What he writes does not always make sense to others. He therefore finds it much easier to get his point across by telephone or in person.
37. The Council told me Mr X could not access the reasonable adjustments page on its website due to a broken link, which it has now fixed.
38. The Council confirmed it carried out an equality impact assessment when it created its PCN cancellation policy. Its call centre staff undertake annual equality and diversity training and are trained to take PCN challenges by telephone. The Council also now includes information on how to request reasonable adjustments on the PCN document itself, and in the associated paperwork.
39. The Council said it used Mr X’s complaint as a training and learning opportunity. It reminded officers of the reasonable adjustments the Council provides, and about ensuring they telephone customers in future to understand or clarify their needs.
40. The Council said when it first responded to Mr X’s complaint it unfortunately did not address his request for reasonable adjustments. It apologised for this and said it addressed the matter with the officer concerned.
41. The Council said its stage two complaint response recognised it did not provide reasonable adjustments, and it apologised to Mr X for this.

Analysis

42. Reasonable adjustments are changes to remove or reduce a disadvantage related to someone’s disability.
43. When someone asks for reasonable adjustments, we expect councils to engage with them about their disability, how it affects them, what disadvantage it causes, and how this can be overcome or reduced.
44. In this case, when Mr X asked for reasonable adjustments, the Council did not ask Mr X about his disability or what adjustments he might need. That was fault.
45. The Council said Mr X’s email went to the wrong address. That was not Mr X’s fault. The Council’s webpage on reasonable adjustments was not working. In addition, officers in other Council departments should be aware of the Council’s duties under the Equality Act. They should have responded to Mr X or passed his email to the correct department.
46. Later, the Council sought to engage with Mr X about his reasonable adjustment request by asking him for medical evidence. Requesting medical evidence should not be the Council’s starting point. It should first try to understand someone’s disability and how it affects them. The Council recognised this following Mr X’s complaint and addressed it with the officer concerned.
47. Following Mr X’s complaint, the Council acted to remind officers of their responsibilities under the Equality Act. It also fixed the broken link on its website and has suitable procedures in place to help people challenge a PCN in future.

Injustice

48. Mr X asked the Council for help challenging the PCN. Unfortunately, the Council did not engage with Mr X about his disability until it responded to his formal complaint.
49. If the Council had responded in a suitable timeframe, it could have helped Mr X challenge the PCN’s. This could have avoided the need to escalate the process and instruct enforcement agents. The Council has apologised and cancelled the PCN’s, which addressed some of Mr X’s injustice.
50. However, that does not remedy the avoidable distress and worry Mr X suffered when the Council instructed enforcement agents. It also does not fully remedy the frustration and sense of helplessness Mr X suffered. That is Mr X’s injustice, and the Council should provide a further remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council agreed to pay Mr X £250 to recognise the avoidable distress he suffered when it failed to engage with him about his request for reasonable adjustments.
52. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I completed my investigation. I found there was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to engage with Mr X about his request for reasonable adjustments.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman