Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly store important information about a planning agreement with his landlord. This led to an avoidable delay in providing this information. Further, Mr X complained about the Council’s communication and its failure to consider and implement requested reasonable adjustments. He also complained the Council failed to meet its complaint timescales, failed to properly record his complaints, and failed to fully address the complaints he made. We have found the Council at fault for its communication with Mr X and for failing to have due regard to his requested reasonable adjustments. We have also found the Council at fault for its complaint handling and for examples of poor administrative practice. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic financial remedy, and provide guidance to staff.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
1. failed to properly store information related to a legal planning agreement with his landlord. This led to a significant delay in providing information Mr X requested.
2. repeatedly failed to consider, record and implement Mr X’s requested reasonable adjustments for communication over a prolonged period.
3. repeatedly failed to adhere to its complaint timescales. Mr X said the Council also failed to properly record his complaints, or substantively address specific concerns.
2. Mr X said these faults caused him avoidable frustration, distress and time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
6. 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

7. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered information he provided.
8. I considered information the Council provided about the complaint.
9. Both Mr X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Section 106 agreements

10. Planning applications may be approved subject to a planning condition requiring the applicant to enter into a separate legal agreement. These agreements are usually referred to as ‘section 106’ agreements. They are in the form of a deed, which is a form of contract that is legally binding on the parties that sign it. They may be enforced in the county court.

Reasonable adjustments

11. 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.
12. 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. We have published guidance for local authorities called “Equal Access: Getting it right for people with disabilities”. This looked at complaints we received about this topic and offers good practice advice to councils.

Council’s complaints procedure

13. The Council operates a two-stage complaints procedure:
1. The Council says it will confirm receipt of a complaint within two working days.
2. At stage one of its complaints procedure, the Council says it will respond to complaints within 20 working days of receipt.
3. At stage two of its complaints procedure, the Council says it will review the complaint and aim to respond within 20 working days. It says if it needs more time, the Council will tell the complainant why.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

14. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
15. Mr X said he contacted the Council in January 2023 with concerns about his landlord. Mr X said his landlord had signed a section 106 agreement with the Council, meaning it should charge a specific amount of rent. However, Mr X believed his landlord was in breach of this agreement, having raised the rent on his property, which was designated affordable housing.
16. Mr X said he did not receive a reply from the Council. In March 2023, he called the Council to follow up. The Council told Mr X it did not have an update, but it would pass on his message. The Council’s internal records show it logged this contact, noting Mr X had not yet received a reply and that he had requested telephone calls as a reasonable adjustment in communication. Mr X contacted the Council twice more by phone for an update and asked for a call back. The Council passed these messages onto Mr X’s landlord, but did not call him back.
17. In April 2023, Mr X contacted the Council twice by phone for an update. Mr X said his messages and requests for a call back were taken, but he did not receive any updates from the Council. The Council passed the matter onto Mr X’s landlord and asked it to respond.
18. In May 2023, Mr X called the Council on two further occasions. The Council took his messages and said it would call back. It passed the messages onto Mr X’s landlord. Mr X complained to the Council about its lack of response and the fact the original concern remained unaddressed almost six months after being raised. Mr X also said the Council had not called him back, despite several requests for this as a reasonable adjustment.
19. In June 2023, Mr X’s landlord told him it had obtained the Council’s permission to increase the rent, meaning it had complied with the section 106 agreement. It said the Council would be able to provide a copy of another document, called the rents and nominations agreement, that confirmed this. Mr X called the Council, which he said took his message, but did not call back. Mr X’s carer then emailed the Council, highlighting the lack of call and seeking details about the rent increase. The Council then called Mr X. Mr X said the Council told him it would need to locate the rents and nominations agreement.
20. In July 2023, Mr X called the Council, seeking an update and requesting a copy of the rents and nominations agreement. The Council internally agreed it could disclose this document. It sent a copy to Mr X by post, also advising it was closing his complaint on this basis.
21. Mr X sought the Ombudsman’s assistance in escalating his complaint, as the Council had not addressed his complaints about its failure to make reasonable adjustments, its communication, or its complaints handling. Between November 2023 and March 2024, the Council agreed the scope of the complaint, held a video call with Mr X, and prepared its response.
22. On 6 March 2024, the Council provided its final response to Mr X’s complaint:
1. The Council apologised that Mr X had needed to complain and for its delay in responding. It noted staffing issues in its complaints team. The Council said it would respond to the main issues Mr X raised. It defined these as its complaints procedure, the stage one complaint response, and reasonable adjustments.
2. On its complaints procedure, the Council apologised for the delays and accepted it had not met expected standards. It agreed it had responded to Mr X’s stage one complaint late, while noting it had not received Mr X’s request to escalate until it came from the Ombudsman. It said it had reminded its officers to ensure they responded to complaints within target time and that they dealt with escalation requests promptly.
3. On its stage one complaint response, the Council recognised the response did not fully address the complaint Mr X made. It said the letter was incorrectly dated and did not have an email address for Mr X to respond to. The Council said it had reminded officers that responses should address each issue raised and information should be accurate. It apologised Mr X felt officer conduct during a telephone call was inappropriate and for any miscommunication or offence that had occurred.
4. On reasonable adjustments, the Council apologised that Mr X felt his requests had not been actioned. The Council said it understood officers had contacted Mr X on several occasions for short telephone calls, which it understood Mr X found suitable. It said it had posted documents and correspondence where requested. The Council said officers had arranged a video call with Mr X and his advocates to discuss the stage two complaint. It said when it issued the stage two complaint response, an officer would contact Mr X to read it to him. It said it would also post a copy of the response to Mr X and send a copy to his advocate.
5. The Council said it did not have a system to centrally record reasonable adjustments that all staff could view. It said it was looking to develop a system for this. In the meantime, the Council said each service would aim to meet requested reasonable adjustments when Mr X contacted them.
23. In March 2024, Mr X’s carer wrote to the Council. They asked the Council to provide a recording of the meeting. They also asked the Council to reissue its response utilising an 11-point summary it had agreed with Mr X in February 2023. They said these were requests for reasonable adjustments. The Council said it understood Mr X had recorded the meeting himself and would not share its recording of the meeting for technical reasons. It said its complaint response was final.
24. On 20 March 2024, Mr X’s advocate wrote to the Council on Mr X’s behalf:
1. They said Mr X was not asking the Council to re-open its investigation. Mr X wanted the Council to respond to the 11 points of complaint each party had agreed, as a reasonable adjustment. They asked if the Council was refusing to consider this request as a reasonable adjustment.
2. They said the Council had agreed to record the meeting when it started and asked the Council to review whether it could share a recording.
3. Mr X’s advocate explained Mr X had experienced further difficulties making complaints. They said the Council’s complaints team appeared to be unaware of reasonable adjustments and had not agreed to further video calls.
25. The Council maintained it would not share a recording of the meeting due to security concerns. The Council said it had responded to the complaint in a format that addressed the core issues raised. Mr X’s advocate stressed Mr X sought the adjusted format as a reasonable adjustment. The Council said its response was final.

Analysis

Complaints handling – procedural matters

26. Paragraph 13 sets out the timescales for the Council’s complaints procedure.
27. Mr X complained to the Council on 24 May 2023. The Council did not acknowledge receipt until 20 June 2023, a delay of 17 working days. I have found the Council at fault for this delay.
28. The Council should have responded by 21 June 2023. The Council did not respond until 4 July 2023, a delay of nine working days. I have found the Council at fault for this delay.
29. The Council recorded Mr X’s stage two complaint on 8 November 2023. However, it did not acknowledge the complaint until 12 December 2023, a delay of 22 working days. The Council did not confirm the complaint being investigated, or provide Mr X with relevant contact details. The Council then did not contact Mr X again for over a month.
30. The Council held a video meeting with Mr X on 31 January 2024. The Council then confirmed the complaint it would investigate in writing and sent its stage two complaint response on 6 March 2024. The final response was late overall, due to difficulty Mr X experienced trying to escalate his complaint and the Council’s delayed acknowledgement. I have found the Council at fault for this delay.
31. The Council told Mr X staffing issues affected its complaints service, which I note. The Council also accepted some faults in its complaints handling in its final complaint response. I do not believe the Council recognised the extent of its faults or the resultant injustice to Mr X. Mr X was put to time and trouble seeking a resolution to his complaints, which could have been avoided if the Council had fully adhered to its complaints procedure.
32. The Council has not provided a remedy in recognition of Mr X’s avoidable time and trouble. I have recommended the Council do so.

Communication, reasonable adjustments and complaint resolution

33. The Council’s communication with Mr X and its response to his complaints are closely tied to how it considered and acted on his requests for reasonable adjustments.
34. Mr X kept records showing the difficulty he faced from the outset when trying to communicate with the Council, particularly between January and June 2023. I find that Mr X’s records provide a credible contemporaneous account of his experience.
35. Mr X asked the Council to communicate with him by phone, rather than in writing, as a reasonable adjustment. The Council’s own records show it frequently documented Mr X’s contact and his requests for a telephone call back as a reasonable adjustment. It regularly passed Mr X’s messages onto his landlord, as it felt the landlord would be best placed to respond. However, I have seen no evidence it properly considered or decided whether to implement Mr X’s request, and it routinely did not call him back with an update. The updates Mr X obtained appear due to his efforts, rather than the Council proactively responding. The Council became more responsive in June and July 2023, returning calls around the time Mr X complained, though the matter had been ongoing for around six months by this point.
36. The Council’s failure to return Mr X’s calls shows not just fault in its communication, but a wider failure to show regard for Mr X’s requested adjustments.
37. The Council’s stage one complaint response did not address Mr X’s concerns about communication, or reasonable adjustments. The Council sent its response by letter. However, it said Mr X should escalate his complaint by replying in writing to its email. The wording used appears to be of a standard template, likely included in error. However, that the Council included this wording at all suggests a further lack of consideration for how it communicated with Mr X. The Council told Mr X to escalate his complaint in writing, something Mr X had been clear he could not do. Mr X sought intervention from the Ombudsman to escalate his complaint, which caused additional avoidable delay.
38. The Council later accepted it did not address Mr X’s complaint about reasonable adjustments, but said it had spoken to Mr X in short telephone calls, which complied with his requested reasonable adjustments. These short calls appear to be those reflected in Mr X’s records, which Mr X made because the Council had not replied in an accessible format. I do not therefore believe the Council can cite these as examples of good practice.
39. For the reasons above, I have found the Council at fault for failures in its communication. I have found the Council at fault for failing to show regard for Mr X’s requested reasonable adjustments, prior to and at stage one of its complaints procedure. I have also found the Council at fault for failing to address the substance of Mr X’s stage one complaint.
40. These faults caused Mr X an injustice. Mr X experienced avoidable frustration and distress because of the Council’s poor communication. Mr X may not have had to complain, had the Council communicated effectively. The Council’s handling of the stage one complaint demonstrated the same faults that had prompted the complaint. This compounded Mr X’s injustice, while providing no remedy.
41. The Council showed greater regard for Mr X’s requested reasonable adjustments in its handling of the stage two complaint. There is some dispute over whether the Council agreed to provide a recording of the video meeting held as a reasonable adjustment. I have not seen evidence this was agreed before the meeting. The Council said it could not provide Mr X with a copy for technical reasons. It was later able to provide the Ombudsman with a copy, though this took time. Any discussion on the day about who would record the meeting seems to have taken place before the recording started. It remains open to the Council to provide a copy of the recording to Mr X, or clarify why it cannot.
42. The Council agreed 11 specific points of complaint with Mr X. It then summarised Mr X’s complaint into three main issues in its final response. Mr X asked the Council to re-issue its response in a format that utilised the 11 points agreed. Mr X said he had sought this as a reasonable adjustment, to aid his comprehension.
43. While the Council could have been clearer about the format of its response from the outset, it is not fault for the Council to summarise complaints when responding. I have not seen any record showing Mr X asked the Council to adopt a specific format as a reasonable adjustment before the Council replied, or any record showing the Council agreed to do so.
44. Mr X clearly asked for the Council to adapt its response as a reasonable adjustment after receiving the Council’s reply. The Council deciding not to adapt its response would not be fault, providing it could show it considered this request properly and explained to Mr X why it did not think it was reasonable. Responding to Mr X, the Council only said it had addressed his concerns in its standard format, which was final. It did not explain why it thought it unreasonable to change the format of the response as an adjustment.
45. I have found the Council at fault for failing to show due consideration of Mr X’s request to adapt its response. This caused Mr X an injustice in the form of avoidable frustration and distress.
46. In its final complaint response, the Council confirmed it did not have a central system on which to record requested reasonable adjustments. I have addressed this in my recommendations.

File storage and provision of information

47. The Council recognised it delayed providing Mr X with information about the section 106 agreement. It did not explain why this happened, or how it would prevent this from happening again.
48. While characterised as being about a section 106 agreement, Mr X’s query was substantively about whether the Council knew about, or had agreed to, Mr X’s landlord increasing his rent. The Council held a copy of the rents and nominations agreement, which was directly relevant to Mr X’s enquiry. It is unclear why the Council could not have provided this agreement to Mr X when he first enquired. Mr X understood this was because the information was improperly stored. However, the evidence shows this delay was mainly due to the Council deciding Mr X’s concerns were a matter solely for his landlord to address. It did not engage more directly with the matter until June 2023, when the landlord referred Mr X back to the Council and highlighted the existence of the rents and nominations agreement. Mr X then asked for a copy immediately, though it took the Council a further month to consider if it could disclose this. Much of the delay was therefore avoidable.
49. The Council also appears not to have considered whether it should address Mr X’s repeated requests under freedom of information legislation. This would have required a response within specific timescales and allowed Mr X to approach the ICO if he remained dissatisfied. Members of the public do not have to cite relevant legislation when making an information request. It is incumbent on councils to identify situations where the legislation may apply and act accordingly.
50. I have found the Council at fault for these reasons. These faults caused Mr X an injustice. Had the Council been able to swiftly provide the information sought, or provide appropriate rights to approach the ICO, it is possible Mr X’s need to repeatedly contact the Council could have been avoided. This would have mitigated or removed the avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty that followed.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide an apology to Mr X for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies document.
2. Share the findings of this investigation and a copy of the Ombudsman’s focus report “Equal access: Getting it right for people with disabilities” with relevant officers, to provide officers with wider examples of faults and good practice concerning reasonable adjustments in service delivery and complaints handling.
3. Pay Mr X £200 in recognition of the injustice identified in this statement.
52. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
53. In an investigation of another complaint made by Mr X, the Ombudsman recommended the Council provide an action plan showing how it would corporately record, assess, and deliver reasonable adjustments requested by service users. The Council has provided the Ombudsman with evidence it is complying with these recommendations. I consider the service improvements made in our previous investigation will address the systemic faults identified and prevent them from happening to others. I have not therefore made any further recommendations about this.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman