Mr A complained that he was discriminated against because of his health condition. He was unhappy with the Council’s Stage 1 and 2 complaint and referred to the contradictions between them. The Stage 1 response said that the fact that Mr A’s driving licence had expired was the only reason he was not registered for the Council operated work scheme. However, the Stage 2 response said that although his driving license had not expired, he had not been registered for the scheme because he had not provided the correct document.
The Ombudsman found that the Council’s Stage 1 and 2 investigation fell short of what the Ombudsman would expect from a public body. Had the Stage 2 investigation taken into account what had been said at Stage 1, the contradictions and factual inaccuracies evident in the responses could have been avoided and addressed. As a result of the shortcomings, Mr A lost confidence in both the Service and the Council’s complaint handling process and this was an injustice to him. As part of further learning from this case, the Ombudsman highlighted the need for training to be provided on what was appropriate documentation for the purposes of the work scheme. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr A for the shortcomings in both its Stage 1 and Stage 2 investigations and the contradictions in its responses.