The Ombudsman’s Principles
Jump to
We want to be open and clear with both complainants and public bodies about what we expect when public bodies deliver services, and the questions we ask in deciding whether maladministration and service failure have occurred.
For those reasons we have published the Ombudsman’s Principles, which includes the Principles of Good Administration, Principles of Good Complaint Handling and Principles for Remedy. The Principles of Good Administration are particularly relevant here. These are the overarching principles which form the standard against which we assess the actions and decisions of public bodies.
Three of these six Principles are likely to come into play most often in our consideration of complaints that public bodies have acted unfairly towards, or provided poor service to, disabled people. They are:
- Getting it right
- Being customer focused
- Acting fairly and proportionately
Getting it right
‘Getting it right’ includes acting in accordance with the law and with regard for the rights of those concerned. It also includes taking reasonable decisions based on all relevant considerations. In this context, of course, the Disability Discrimination and Equality Acts, together with the Human Rights Act, are of particular relevance, forming a specific element of the overall standard.
So, if it appears to us that someone’s disability rights are engaged in relation to the events complained about, we will expect the public body complained about to have taken account of those rights as a relevant consideration in its decision making and had regard to those rights in the way it carried out its functions and throughout the provision of services to the complainant. For Mr F, although Cafcass were aware of his disabilities, they had just ‘gone through the motions’ and did not take account of his right to support and adjustments during his involvement with their service. This had made Mr F reluctant to go back to court in relation to access to his daughter as it meant he would have to re-engage with Cafcass.
Similarly, we would expect the public body to have had regard to and have taken account of core human rights principles of fairness, respect, equality, dignity and autonomy.
If the public body is unable to demonstrate that it has had proper regard to all of these factors, we will take that into account when considering whether there has been maladministration and/or service failure. In Miss W’s case a failure to consider these aspects of her care were so serious that they constituted service failure which resulted in unnecessary distress and considerable worry and inconvenience to her family.
Being customer focused
‘Being customer focused’ includes ensuring people can access services easily. It also includes dealing with people helpfully, promptly and sensitively, bearing in mind their individual circumstances. Difficulties in communication are a frequent part of complaints which we consider. Ms T was profoundly deaf and had epilepsy. Following an operation, the failure to assess her needs and ensure that she could communicate left her isolated and depressed and meant that opportunities to diagnose and treat her illness were lost.
So, we will expect the public body to have planned, designed and delivered its services in a way that ensures disabled people can access them easily; and to have treated the individual concerned with sensitivity, bearing in mind their individual needs and responding flexibly to the circumstances of the case.
If the evidence shows that the public body has not done so, we will take that into account when considering whether there has been maladministration and/or service failure.
Acting fairly and proportionately
‘Acting fairly and proportionately’ means that public bodies should always treat people fairly, and with respect. They should understand and respect the diversity of their customers and ensure equal access to services and treatment regardless of people’s background or circumstances. They must ensure that their decisions and actions are proportionate, appropriate and fair. Mr L’s story demonstrates the impact on an individual when a hospital consultant failed to treat him with respect and ensure that his care and treatment were based on an understanding of his needs.
So, we will expect the public body and its staff to be able to demonstrate an understanding of the diverse needs of their disabled customers and an ability to respond appropriately to them. We will expect the individual who has complained to us to have been treated fairly, with the result that there is equality in the outcomes for them.
If the evidence shows that this is not so, we will take that into account when considering whether there has been maladministration and/or service failure.
