The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an inaccessible polling station. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating and there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.
The complaint
Miss Y complains her local polling station is not wheelchair accessible. She says this prevents her from entering the station safely and voting. She says this is discriminatory and the temporary ramp is not suitable as it has caused her to injure her back due to its steepness.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss Y and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My Assessment
Miss Y is a wheelchair user. Miss Y’s local polling station is in a local community building. To enter the building there is a ramp. To access the main ramp there are two steps. To bridge this gap and make the building accessible, the Council has provided a temporary ramp.
For the temporary ramp to be deployed over the steps, the wheelchair user has to tell staff and get help.
The Council says there is a sign at the steps with the number to call to get help. It also says that polling staff regularly check the outside the building through the day to see if anyone needs help.
Miss Y says the temporary ramp does not meet the legal requirements.
The law says a temporary ramp should have a shallow gradient, have a non-slip surface, enough width for a wheelchair, have raised edges and be secure and stable. The ramp should have a weight capacity that exceeds the wheelchair and user weight combined which is usually over 270kg.
Miss Y says the ramp is steep and cannot carry the weight of an electric wheelchair which is about 250kg.
The Council conducted a health and safety inspection after receiving Miss Y’s complaint and were satisfied the ramp posed no safety concerns. The Council says it has considered Miss Y’s comments about the suitability of the temporary ramp for electric wheelchairs. It also agreed to conduct a health and safety review on the temporary ramp and review the specification of the ramp to ensure it is suitable for a wider range of electric wheelchair models.
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.
The Council considered Miss Y’s complaint, made a site visit to ensure the ramp’s safety, and considered what other action it could take to ensure accessibility. This included getting help from its staff and how its staff could be alerted to Miss Y’s attendance. It therefore considered whether the polling station was suitably accessible and where it could make reasonable adjustments. As it has considered whether the polling station was reasonably accessible, there is no evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public roles. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public roles to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010.
Miss Y says the inaccessibility of the polling station is discrimination which prevents wheelchair users from voting. The Council says it considered Miss Y’s vulnerabilities and ensured the building was accessible by providing a temporary ramp. The health and safety officer checked the ramps safety before polling day and Miss Y was able to vote successfully. If Miss Y feels the Council has not followed the Equality Act 2010, she can take the matter to court.
Miss Y says she injured her back due to the steepness of the ramp. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes their power also places some limits on what we may investigate. One of these concerns negligence claims about personal injury. We cannot decide liability claims for negligence. These are legal claims which may only insurers or the courts can decide.
We cannot decide liability or award damages. Any claim for damages, such as for personal injury on the ramp for Miss Y, are matters more suitably dealt with by the courts or through a claim to the Council’s own insurers. It is therefore reasonable for Miss Y to follow a claim through either the Council’s insurer or the courts. We will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating and there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman