The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complains the Council restricted her and her mother, Mrs Y, from accessing its Handypersons service. She also says the Council failed to consider what reasonable adjustments it could make to provide this service to her in future. We have discontinued our investigation. This is because the Council no longer provides the Handypersons service to its residents. An investigation by the Ombudsman cannot therefore achieve a meaningful remedy for Miss X and Mrs Y.
The complaint
Miss X complains the Council restricted access to its Handypersons service. She also says the Council has not considered what reasonable adjustments it can make to provide access to this service, following a recent complaint about the operative. Miss X says the Council’s position has put her at a disadvantage because of her disability and has caused distress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her.
I considered the Council’s responses to my enquiries.
Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
Relevant legislation Equality Act 2010 The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
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 an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
Reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities 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.
Background
The summary below is an outline of the key events in this complaint. It is not an exhaustive chronology of everything that happened.
Miss X has told me she has several diagnoses that affect her wellbeing. These include, but are not limited to, severe OCD, anxiety, and depression.
The Council’s Handyperson service was jointly delivered with a third-party organisation, Group A, for residents in the Council’s area. Prior to this, the service was provided by Group A without the Council’s input. Miss X says her and her mother, Mrs Y, regularly used Group A’s Handyperson’s service for repairs in their homes without issue.
Miss X contacted the Council’s Handyperson service and arranged for an operative to carry out repairs in Mrs Y’s property in early 2022. When carrying out the repairs, the operative damaged a brick wall and left without repairing it. Miss X says the operative did not disclose the damage caused.
Miss X contacted the Council about this. The Council apologised for the lack of explanation and said the operative was intending to repair it when he returned. Miss X said the damage had been worse than the operative suggested. She did not trust the operative to return and complete the work, given the way the matter had been handled. She said the operative had sought to blame her for the damage caused.
The Council arranged for the operative to return with supervision to complete the repairs. Miss X says she reluctantly agreed to this arrangement. The Council cancelled the appointment on the day, citing a breakdown in the relationship between parties as the reason.
Miss X complained to the Council. She said the operative’s conduct and the damage to property had caused her and Mrs Y distress and financial loss, and affected their relationship. Miss X said she had provided evidence of the operative’s conduct to the Council and it had failed to investigate the matter properly. She asked for another operative to complete the work, or for the Council to allow her to contact Group A directly to arrange for the repairs to be finished.
The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. It offered to use an independent contractor to repair the damage caused and to reimburse the cost of some of the materials. It said Miss X and Mrs Y could continue to use the Council’s Handypersons scheme in future, but the operative in question was the only one employed to do this work. It said it could not provide another operative.
Miss X said the Council had failed to consider how using the same operative in future would impact her mental wellbeing. She said the Council had not considered what reasonable adjustments it could make to deliver this service in future. Miss X also said she and Mrs Y did not want to use the same operative for future jobs. This meant the Council’s position effectively restricted their access to a service they had come to rely on. Miss X referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.
Analysis Miss X disputes the Council’s description of events, its assessment of its own liability, and the scope of work it proposes to repair the damage caused to Mrs Y’s home. Liability and the scope of any proposed repairs would be a matter for the courts or insurers to decide. I have discussed this with Miss X and confirmed the Ombudsman cannot make a decision about this.
Miss X said the Council failed to consider what reasonable adjustments it could make to provide the service in future. It had said the same operative would attend any future jobs, which Miss X said would disproportionately impact her because of her diagnosed OCD. Miss X also said this restricted Miss X’s and Mrs Y’s access to the service, given they did not want to use the same operative again in future.
The Council told me it had a contract with Group A to deliver its Handypersons scheme. Group A also has a separate main Handypersons scheme it provides for its own residents. The Council says operatives are contracted either to Group A’s main scheme or the Council’s subsidised scheme.
The Council says it enquired whether it would be possible to use a different operative from Group A’s scheme, but clarified the contracts in place meant operatives could not be swapped from one scheme to another.
The Council has told me the operative assigned to its scheme left the post earlier this year and it has since been unable to recruit a replacement. Its contract for this service with Group A has since expired and the Council has now opted not to provide this service. It says it hopes to be able to provide this service again in the future. The Council says its residents can contact Group A directly to request that repairs be carried out under Group A’s main Handypersons scheme.
As outlined in paragraph 8, we cannot decide whether a council has breached its equalities duty. We can only evaluate whether councils can show they have considered their duties in their decision making.
There is some evidence the Council explored how it could best deliver the service for Miss X and Mrs Y, given the concerns they had raised. It offered to arrange for an independent contractor to repair the damage caused, rather than have the same operative return on this occasion. I recognise Miss X felt the works offered were insufficient; however, the Ombudsman cannot decide what work should have been carried out, as this is a professional decision.
The Council says it explored whether it was possible to assign a different operative for future repairs, but decided that legal restrictions prevented operatives swapping between Group A’s main scheme and the Council’s subsidised scheme. The Council has now brought its Handypersons service to a close altogether and says residents can contact Group A directly to access its main service.
Miss X disputes this account. She says has seen internal discussions by Group A staff suggesting a new operative could have been allocated to her, but Group A decided not to do so.
As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations, completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did. I recognise Miss X’s strongly held views in this case; however, I do not believe the Ombudsman would be likely to find the Council’s actions caused Miss X a significant injustice.
Further, given that the Council’s Handyperson service has ceased altogether, there is now little that further investigation by the Ombudsman can achieve as a remedy for Miss X.
I have therefore discontinued my investigation on this basis.
Final decision
I have discontinued my investigation. This is because the Council no longer provides the service being complained about and an investigation by the Ombudsman cannot achieve a meaningful remedy for Miss X and Mrs Y.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman