The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his bin collection complaints and the lack of reasonable adjustments it made for him when he submitted various complaints to it in September 2023. The Council was at fault for lack of clarity and consistency in how it managed Mr X’s reasonable adjustments. This caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and frustration. The council agreed to our recommendations at the end of this decision on what action the Council will take to remedy the injustice its actions caused Mr X.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council failed to quickly resolve his concerns about his bin collections and then failed to consider its responsibility under the Equality Act 2010 when in September 2023 he tried to log complaints about his bin collections and about a nearby planning development.
He says that despite him telling the Council’s officers he needed the adjustments the Council was reluctant to take his complaints over the phone and arrange calls after sending him letters. Mr X told us that he felt he had to fight for the adjustments and the Council never acknowledged that it was making adjustments for him.
Mr X would like the Council to admit it was wrong and apologise for making it difficult to log his complaints over the phone and for the delay in calling him after it issued letters. He would also like it to ensure it follows its policy in place to provide reasonable adjustments when needed.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided.
Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Equality act The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It provides the UK with discrimination law which protects individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society.
The Act says, a public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to making decisions on whether a body in jurisdiction has breached the Equality Act – this can only be done by the courts. But the Ombudsman can make decisions about whether a body in jurisdiction has had due regard to the Equality Act in their treatment of someone, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
Reasonable adjustments The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any organisation which carries out a public function. The Act lists the relevant protected characteristics which include disability.
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.
When the duty arises, service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments requested are reasonable, they must make them.
What happened In August 2023 Mr X contacted the Council to complain about his bin collections and about a planning matter. He told the officers that he spoke to that he needed reasonable adjustments, and these were: being able to make complaints over the phone; and someone ringing him after sending him a letter to discuss the contents of the letter as he would not be able to read and process the information without support.
He said that on both occasions he was not able to initially submit the complaint over the phone and that no one called him after writing to him. Mr X said the Council eventually made the necessary arrangements for him to submit the complaint, but he felt he had to fight for this to happen.
In mid-September the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint about the difficulties he experienced in logging his comments against a planning application. It said that it received Mr X’s comments in time, and it would consider them in the decision-making process. The Council apologised for the difficulties Mr X encountered during his call with the planning officer and said that it would discuss the circumstances of this case with staff across the service to improve their knowledge and how they engage with persons that need assistance during the consultation period.
At the end of September 2023, the Council responded to Mr X’s waste collections complaint and said that the bin collections issue and planning consultation had been resolved. The Council’s officers did not ring Mr X following this response to talk thought the contents of the letter until almost a month later.
Mr X was still unhappy about the Council’s initial decision to not allow him to make a complaint over the phone. The Council also apologised for the difficulties Mr X experienced in engaging with the planning consultation process and said that it would discuss this with its planning officers to ensure the service was more accessible in the future.
In the same month, Mr X contacted an advocacy service to represent him in his complaint to the Council as he was not happy with the Council’s response, and he wanted it to reconsider his complaint.
In early October 2023 the Council send Mr X its final response to his bin collection complaint and said that: the Council took three separate complaints that he made over the phone; the officers called him after the stage one response to read it out to him; when he said he disagreed with the Council’s response it arranged for another call so that a complaints officer could write down his request for a stage two investigation; and an officer would call him following this letter to read this out to him.
In mid-October Mr X chased the Council for a phone call following the stage one response he had received in mid-September 2023.
A few days later a Council officer rang Mr X to go through the contents of the letter it had sent him as a final response to his complaint.
In early November 2023 the Council issued its final response to Mr X’s planning complaint. In it, the Council: apologised for not offering a call after the stage one response to his complaint which it “should have offered”; and confirmed it delivered bespoke training to the staff in the planning department on understanding better the Council’s reasonable adjustments policy and how they should use it in their day-to-day duties.
Mr X was still unhappy about the Council’s actions, and he asked us to consider his complaint.
Analysis Reasonable adjustments Ms X complained that the Council did not initially allow him to submit complaints on the phone. Although this happened eventually, Mr X said that at various stages of the process he was referred to the website and the online services the Council offered to record complaints.
The Council’s records support Mr X’s accounts. Whilst we understand that the Council may have standard letters and paragraphs where it explains the available services and ways to complain to residents, we consider these should not be used when dealing with a member of the public who told the Council they needed reasonable adjustments without amending them to ensure they are in line with the agreed reasonable adjustments for that person. This is fault.
This caused Mr X avoidable distress and frustration as he explained that to him it looked like the Council did not listen and/or consider his request for reasonable adjustments.
The Council’s records also show that following a stage one reply to his planning complaint, Mr X did not get a call back until a month later, after a number of emails chasing the Council for it. This is fault.
In its stage two response to Mr X’s complaint dated November 2023 the Council said it “perhaps should have offered a call back” but we disagree. If this was an agreed reasonable adjustment to meet Mr X’s needs, the Council had a duty to make that call in a timely manner.
If it was not an agreed reasonable adjustment, the Council should have told Mr X about this.
The lack of transparency about what the agreed reasonable adjustments were, and the lack of consistency on how the adjustments were made (different number of days for calls following the written communications) caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty about whether he would get a call from the Council and when this would happen. This led to avoidable frustration for Mr X.
We have found the Council acted without fault in respect of Mr X’s waste collection complaint. The Council called him promptly following written communications and thanks to this progressed and resolved this complaint quickly.
Agreed action
Within one month of the date of the final decision statement, the Council will: apologise to Mr X its failure to clearly state what reasonable adjustments it agreed to and how it would make them and the distress and frustration this has caused him; and pay Ms X £250 to remedy the distress, frustration and unnecessary time and trouble he experienced in the course of his planning complaint.
Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council will remind its staff that deal with complaints that: if a resident says they are not managing to access a service, report issues, or communicate with the Council due to a health condition or disability, the Council has a duty under the Equality Act to enquire into the adjustments they are requesting and if they are reasonable, to put them place.
The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
The Council was at fault for lack of clarity and consistency in how it managed Mr X’s reasonable adjustments. This caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and frustration. The Council agreed to our recommendations and our investigation is now complete.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman