The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow Mr X to submit a public statement at a cabinet meeting. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused to allow him to make a public statement at a cabinet meeting and ignored his request to submit a written statement as a reasonable adjustment.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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.
Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X gave the Council a statement for the next cabinet meeting and asked that it read this at the meeting as a reasonable adjustment, as he could only communicate in writing.
I note the statement referred to systemic failings of the Council’s Environmental Health department that Mr X wanted the cabinet to commit to address.
The Council refused Mr X’s request for a public statement with reference to its constitution which sets out the scope of public statements and grounds for rejection. It said the statement was not relevant to an item of business for the meeting with reference to the agenda; it was about the conduct of officers; it sought to pursue a complaint and; it was about matters personal to the speaker. The Council confirmed if the statement has been in scope it would have agreed the requested adjustment.
The Council’s constitution makes clear it can refuse a statement for any of the four reasons referred. I note Mr X would interpret and apply these differently. However, I cannot question the Council’s judgement. And the Council had regard to its Equality Act duties by considering Mr X’s request and giving reasons for refusal. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify investigating.
In its final response the Council told Mr X his environmental health complaints would be addressed separately through the complaints process. Mr X says the Council was wrong to reference a separate third party complaint. However, I am satisfied this had no bearing on the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s statement. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman