Summary: Mr B complained the Council delayed carrying out repairs to a right-of-way and failed to make a reasonable adjustment to allow him to make a complaint. The Council failed to properly explain the prioritisation process or likely timescales for completion of work and failed to take a complaint from Mr B. That led to Mr B having to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. An apology, payment to Mr B, reminder to officers and provision of updated information on the Council’s website is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained about the way the Council dealt with a right of way disrepair issue he reported on several occasions. He says the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments to ensure its service was accessible to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
5. Mr B 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

Background

6. Mr B reported defects to a footpath to the Council in June 2019. Mr B is dyslexic and cannot access the Council’s website where residents log in to see what is happening with defects they have reported.
7. Mr B telephoned the Council often between July 2019 and November 2019. Each time Mr B tried to get an update on what was happening with his report. When Mr B said he could not access the website the officers he dealt with emailed the rights-of-way team to re-refer the case for an inspection. Some of those officers first checked with Mr B whether he could get someone else’s help to access the website or visit the library. On most occasions the officers that dealt with Mr B did not explain the highway prioritisation process. None of the officers Mr B dealt with explained the prioritisation allocated to his report and the likely timescale for completion. When Mr B asked to raise a complaint a manager called him back on one occasion. Later when he asked to raise a complaint officers told him the complaints procedure could not result in earlier completion of work to the footpath. Officers also directed Mr B to the Council’s website to register a complaint or said he could contact the Citizens Advice Bureau or Ombudsman. The Council completed work to the footpath in November 2019.

Analysis

8. Mr B says the Council delayed carrying out repairs to a right-of-way. Having considered the documentary evidence I am satisfied Mr B first raised concerns about the footpath, which is a highways issue rather than a right-of-way, in June 2019. There is no evidence the Council completed works to the footpath until November 2019. I recognise though the Council uses a prioritisation process which means defects not identified as an emergency take longer to repair. It is not for the Ombudsman to comment on the priority given to highway repairs. I therefore do not criticise the Council for deciding to award lower priority to the defect Mr B raised. In any event, the footpath Mr B is complaining about is not next to where he lives. So, any delay by the Council repairing the path has not caused Mr B a significant injustice above that suffered by others in the area who use the path.
9. I am, however, concerned about how the Council communicated with Mr B about the repair to the footpath. The Council normally expects residents to report highway issues online and then use the given reference number to track the progress of the repair online. That online process involves the Council sending emails to those who have raised issues to tell them about the prioritisation given to a particular defect. Those emails include details of the timescale to complete works. That information is also available when residents log in with their reference number to check progress.
10. In this case though the Council knew Mr B could not access the internet. Mr B had made clear to the Council in many telephone conversations he could not do that due to his dyslexia. Mr B had also explained to the Council he did not have anybody who could help him access the Council’s online service. In those circumstances, particularly given Mr B put in a complaint, I would have expected the Council to explain to Mr B either in writing or by telephone what priority it had given to the defect. I would also have expected the Council to tell him the likely timescale for completion of the work. I have listened to 10 of the Council’s telephone conversations with Mr B between July and November 2019. I have only found one occasion when an officer explained the prioritisation process and the fact the Council had allocated Mr B’s report category three. That was in the last telephone conversation which took place in November 2019, shortly before the Council completed the work. Even then the information given did not include details of timescales for completion of the work. I consider it likely if the Council had told Mr B about the prioritisation process, the category it had assigned to the defect he had raised and the likely timescale for completion he would not have had to go to so much time and trouble to pursue his complaint.
11. I am also concerned about the information the Council gave Mr B about its complaints procedure. It is clear from several telephone conversations Mr B wanted to complain about the delay carrying out work to the footpath. Despite that at no time did any of the officers Mr B was dealing with offer to register a complaint on his behalf given he was dyslexic. Instead, most officers told Mr B he could not put in a complaint about highway works because the complaints procedure could not result in the Council giving greater prioritisation to the works themselves. That may well be the case. However, Mr B still had a right to make a complaint about the delay and lack of information given to him. Failure to provide Mr B with suitable access to the complaints procedure either by recording a written complaint on his behalf or sending him a copy of the complaints procedure by post is fault. That again led to Mr B to have to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint, including contacting the Ombudsman.
12. Other than in providing access to the complaints procedure though I do not consider the Council failed to make any reasonable adjustment when dealing with Mr B’s highway defect reports. I am satisfied on each occasion officers discussing the case with Mr B sent an email to the rights-of-way team or reregistered the defect to ensure an inspector carried out a further inspection. I therefore could not say the Council had failed to take account of Mr B’s difficulty accessing its website to report problems with the footpath or check progress. In reaching that view I am aware Mr B refers to times when officers suggested he ask a friend or family member to access the website for him or advised him to visit the library. I understand Mr B found that offensive. However, having listened to the telephone conversations with officers I am satisfied when Mr B made clear those alternatives were not available to him the officer in question agreed to email the rights-of-way team or re-refer the defect. I do not consider it fault for officers to explore with Mr B if there were alternative options for him to check the progress of work to the defect online when I am satisfied they acted on his behalf when he made clear that was not an option.
13. So, I have found fault as the Council failed to properly explain the highway defect process to Mr B, the priority given to his case and the likely timescales for completion of the work. I have also found fault as the Council failed to either record a formal complaint from Mr B or send him a copy of the complaints procedure by post when he made clear he could not access the Council’s procedure online. Those faults meant Mr B had to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. I consider an apology and payment of £100 to Mr B a satisfactory remedy. Alongside that I recommended the Council ensure for those residents reporting highway defects who cannot access the internet information about the prioritisation given to the repair and likely timescales for completion are either provided to the person over the telephone or in writing. The Council should also send a memo reminding customer service advisers although the complaints procedure cannot result in earlier rectification of a highway defect the person complaining still has the right to make a complaint if he or she has raised concerns about how the Council has dealt with the report (outside of the prioritisation given). That reminder should also highlight if the person cannot put in their complaint online the officer taking the call should record the complaint for the person if they cannot put their complaint in writing. I further recommended the Council update its online information to show that although the highways reporting system is online only a person who needs a reasonable adjustment can still make a request to deal with officers over the telephone. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

14. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr B;
• pay Mr B £100;
• send a memo to customer services advisers to ensure for those residents reporting highway defects that cannot access the Council’s online service information is provided either verbally or in writing about the prioritisation given to a highway defect and the likely timescale for completion (once the defect is inspected);
• remind officers in the customer services team that although the complaints procedure cannot result in a highway defect being rectified quicker if a resident wants to complain about failures in the process unrelated to the priority given to the repair they have a right to make a complaint and those complaints should be recorded by the officer over the telephone if the person is unable to put their complaint in writing; and
• update the Council’s online information to advise residents that although the highways reporting system is online only if a resident needs a reasonable adjustment they can still make that request over the telephone.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman