Council failed to properly have regard for Equality Act duties when woman with disability asked for reasonable adjustments, Ombudsman finds

The Ombudsman meanwhile found that the council failed to properly have regard for its Equality Act duties when the woman asked for reasonable adjustments.

The woman behind the complaint, Mrs X, complained that:

• The council stopped her direct payments in 2021 without notice.
• The council failed to reinstate her direct payments despite carrying out a number of care act assessments from 2022 onwards. As a result, she has missed opportunities to employ good carers and has been left without care and support.
• The council failed to provide a copy of the Care Act assessments and reviews and records of the social worker’s visits to her. As a result, she was unable to check the documents for discrepancies, give feedback and felt discriminated against.
• A social worker failed to provide her with a complaints leaflet and withheld confidential information from her. As a result, she struggled to complain.
• The council’s complaints team wrongly grouped her complaints into groups of eight and gave them new reference numbers. As a result, the council missed some of her complaints and the council’s actions have caused confusion to her.
• The council delayed in agreeing a disabled facilities grant for adaptations to her property and carrying out the works. She has been left without the adaptations she needs as a result.
• Social workers failed to include her in discussions with other agencies about the DFG adaptations and have withheld information about the proposed adaptations from her. This meant she was only updated on the progress when she made complaints which caused distress to her.

Considering the complaint, the Ombudsman found there was a “significant delay” in reinstating Ms X’s direct payments to allow her to fund care.

The report stated: “The council established Ms X had care and support needs in 2023, but it appeared to close its file in late December 2023 inappropriately, on the basis that care needs would only be considered further once adaptations were complete. It seems clear Ms X had care and support needs that needed to be met both before and after the adaptations. So, closing its file at this point was fault.

“When the council carried out a further assessment in March 2024 this was stated to be based on an old assessment from 2022. The assessment recorded little or no contact with Ms X at that time to verify what her needs were. Ms X should have been fully involved at this time, even more so as the council had recorded she disagreed with the contents of the earlier assessments being referred to. The failure to properly include her in this assessment was fault.”

The Ombudsman acknowledged that at times, Ms X did not respond to contacts and the council struggled to engage about issues that needed to be resolved.

However, the report noted that Ms X had also requested, as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act, that communication with her be in writing and in large font on coloured paper.

The Ombudsman said: “The Council does not appear to have captured this as a need or, if it decided not to provide it, explained the reason why.

“The approach it took not to share care assessments, and to deal with things verbally goes directly against the reasonable adjustment Ms X had requested.

“Based on the information the Council provided, we found the Council failed to have regard for its duties under the Equality Act. If the Council properly adhered to the adjustments requested, it is possible Ms X would have been more informed and able to respond.”

To remedy the injustice caused, the council was recommended to:

• Provide a written apology to Miss X for the fault identified.
• Make a payment to Ms X of £1,500 to recognise the prolonged distress caused by the failure to meet her care needs and the long delay in carrying out adaptations.
• Invite Ms X to provide it with evidence of the private care costs she incurred in the period the Ombudsman investigated. The council should review this evidence and if Ms X paid for care to meet her assessed needs for some of the period concerned, between mid-2023 and September 2025 the council should refund the costs Ms X incurred.
• Review what Reasonable Adjustments Ms X needs and write to her explaining what it will provide as adjustments. If it declines to provide a requested adjustment, or considers it should meet a request in a different way, this should be explained.

Birmingham City Council has been approached for comment.

Lottie Winson