Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s allocation of a male social worker to her case, his conduct and poor complaint handling. We have found fault only with the way it responded to her complaint. To remedy the distress caused to Ms X, the Council has agreed to apologise and take action to improve its complaint handling. The Council was not otherwise at fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to make a reasonable adjustment when providing support with her housing situation. In particular, she complains about:
1. the allocation and actions of a male worker, when it should have been on record that this would be harmful to her; and
2. poor complaint handling about this matter. She says the response was both late and inadequate.
2. Ms X says this caused significant distress and a decline in her well-being.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I spoke to Ms X and reviewed the information she provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and reviewed the relevant law.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

8. The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on local authorities and other bodies to provide reasonable adjustments to help disabled people access services. Local authorities should make reasonable adjustments to avoid any disadvantage, where the disabled person would be placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to those using the service who are not disabled.

What happened

9. I have set out below a summary of the key events. But it is not meant to show everything that happened.
10. Ms X has several health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She is housebound and has difficulty engaging with services.
11. In 2022, Ms X was threatened with eviction. She was provided with social work support by the Council to prevent her becoming homeless. She was supported by a female worker, Miss J.
12. In May 2022, the Council decided to reassign the care to a different social worker, although Miss J would continue to be involved because she was trusted by Ms X. Miss X’s supervisor, Mr P was assigned to the case.
13. Ms X told the Council she could not work with Mr P. She said she could only work with a female officer because of her PTSD.
14. In early August 2022, Ms X complained to the Council about:

• a male officer being appointed.
• staff failing to use appropriate language; and
• staff failing to contact her in a specific way.

15. A new female social worker (Ms D) was appointed to Ms X’s case on 18 August 2022.
16. Ms X did not receive a response to her complaint and so she asked her MP to contact the Council on her behalf. The MP wrote to the Council in September 2022. As this did not prompt a reply, she contacted the Ombudsman in November 2022.
17. The Council issued a complaint response in January 2023. This explained the action it had taken as a result of her complaint:

• It replaced Mr P with Ms D in August 2022.
• Ms D had spoken to Ms X about her communication preferences and agreed not to intentionally use language that would cause her distress.

18. Ms X was dissatisfied with this response. She says the Council, specifically Miss J, knew she was unable to work with a male officer. She says the Council failed to make a reasonable adjustment and this had not been acknowledged by the Council in its complaint response. She was also unhappy about the way her complaint had been handled.
19. In response to my enquiries, the Council has said:

• it was not recorded that Ms X cannot work with a male officer;
• Miss P was unaware of this;
• the Council appointed Ms D within a reasonable timeframe, as soon as it became aware of the situation; and
• a written complaint response was not provided because the Council considered it had resolved the matter following a telephone conversation between Ms X and Ms D shortly after she was allocated the case. A formal response was sent once it was known a formal response was required.

Analysis

20. I will consider Ms X’s specific areas of complaint below.

Allocation and actions of a male worker

21. Ms X is clear that the Council knew she was unable to work with a male worker because of her PTSD. The Council disputes this and has said it was not recorded on assessments and hospital discharge records.
22. This is not entirely correct. Ms X’s care records include, under the heading, “Risks the Service User” that “Ms X prefers female social workers”.
23. However, it is only recorded as a preference, and there is no explanation as to why. While Ms X says Miss J would have been aware the risk that was posed by a male worker to her well being, there is no evidence to support this. Under the law, the Council has a duty to make reasonable adjustments to help disabled people access services. In this case, I am not satisfied the Council was aware, when Mr P was appointed, that it needed to consider whether such a reasonable adjustment was needed. For this reason, I do not find fault here.
24. Nor have I found fault with the actions of Mr P. The case records show he was aware of Ms X’s communication requirements and complied with these as far as was reasonable for him to do.
25. I must also consider whether the Council acted promptly once it became aware that a reasonable adjustment had been requested.
26. The Council says Mr P was replaced “within a reasonable frame”. The records show Ms X told the Council on 3 August 2022 that she could not work with Mr P. The case was reallocated to Ms D on 18 August 2022, when the team manager who had authority to make this decision, returned from leave. However, Ms X was not informed of this until 6 September 2022.
27. This timeline shows it took one month from when she told the Council about her inability to work with Mr P for her to be told she had a new female worker. While I acknowledge it would have been preferable for Ms X to be notified sooner, I do not consider the time taken was so excessive, especially as a relevant officer was on leave, for me to make a finding of fault.

Complaint handling

28. Ms X first complained in early August 2022. Under the Council’s complaints procedure, “Unless the expression of dissatisfaction can be resolved to your satisfaction informally, the complaint will be formally acknowledged within three working days”.
29. This process was not followed. The case records show that following her complaint, Ms D did not speak to Ms X until September 2022. There is no record of her complaint being acknowledged in the interim. The Council says this resolved the complaint. I disagree,
30. I say this because the Council was contacted by Ms X’s MP in mid-September. This said she wanted a formal response.
31. Similarly, when the Ombudsman asked the Council about the status of the complaint, it said, “it is an open complaint on our system and has not yet completed the process”. Despite this, it took the Council a further two months to issue a final response.
32. For these reasons, I do not accept the Council had reason to think the complaint had been resolved informally. At the very least, the involvement of the MP should have prompted the Council to confirm to Ms X that it believed the matter was now closed.
33. I agree with Ms X that the response, when it finally arrived, was inadequate. While it summarised action that has been taken in August 2022, it failed to address whether the Council accepted it acted with fault when Mr P was appointed and the other issues she has raised. If it believed it had acted correctly, it should have said so, and explained the reason for this view.
34. Overall, I am satisfied there was fault in the way Ms X’s complaint was dealt with. I accept this has caused Ms X distress and frustration that requires a remedy (below).

Back to top

Agreed action

35. The Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks from the date of my final decision:
1. Apologise in writing to Ms X for its poor complaint handling.
2. Remind relevant staff of the need to acknowledge and respond to complaints in accordance with the Council’s complaints procedure.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have found the Council to have acted with fault when it did not respond to Ms X’s complaint. I made recommendations to the Council and it has agreed to action these. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman