I won my case.
Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales sets precedent for
communicating with people with Autistic Spectrum Disorders and SpLd's....
See my case below:-
I Mr Colin Revell, give individuals or groups the right to breach
confidentiality share this case with others and groups in the public
interest to protect against disability discrimination and breaches of human
and civil rights for all disabled people with Autistic Spectrum
Disorders(Aspergers Syndrome) and Specific Learning Difficulties(SpLd's) in
England and Wales
Legal Services Ombudsman case ref: 27185
September 2003
Further to our previous correspondence, I am writing to let you know that we
have now received from the General Council of the Bar (the Bar Council)
copies of all the e-mails which they sent to, and received from, you in
connection with your complaint about Dr Armstrong.
The Bar Council did not keep notes of any telephone conversations with you.
I have considered what you say about the way that they dealt with your
complaint about Dr Armstrong, and I am writing now to let you know my
conclusions.
As you know, my primary role is to investigate the way in which the
professional bodies handle complaints about lawyers. Your complaint is an
unusual one, in that the Bar Council never actually dealt your complaint
about Dr Armstrong. However, the Bar Council's refusal to deal with your
complaint is something which I can consider. If I am not satisfied with the
Bar Council's decision not to investigate, I can either formally criticise
them, or I can recommend that they reconsider the matter.
It might assist if I begin by setting out the facts. You wanted to complain
about Dr Armstrong. You telephoned the Bar Council at the beginning of
November 2002. They told you that you would have to fill in their
application form. You told them that you have difficulty in managing paper
communications. This is because you have various autistic spectrum
disorders, including Asperger's Syndrome.
Initially, it appeared that the Cherry Tree Advice Centre might be able to
help you complete the application form, however the Centre advised the Bar
Council that they were too busy to assist. Mr Woolf, the Assistant Executive
Secretary to the Bar Council's Professional Conduct and Complaints Committee
(PCC), in his letter to you dated 18 December 2002, then set out what he
considered the options to be, namely:
that your complaint be dealt with entirely by e-mail;
that you find someone to assist you by writing letters on your behalf, and
reading letters to you;
that you provide all information on audio cassettes, which they would be
prepared to supply.
You replied that you would like to correspond by e-mail. You attempted to
fill in the Bar Council's application form online, but had difficulty in
doing so because it is in acrobat reader format. You suggested instead that
perhaps you could discuss your complaint over the telephone, and someone
from the Bar Council could complete the form on your behalf.
The Bar Council told you that completing an application form over the
telephone was '. not an option' [their emphasis], since doing so would be '.
simply too time consuming . for our small staff team to be able to consider.
We are also not always able to telephone you at times that are suitable for
you.' They suggested instead that you either typed the answers to the
questions on their application form in an e-mail, or that you provided
information on cassettes, which they would send to you.
Your told them that you would like to supply the information on an audio
tape. They responded by sending you, via e-mail, a Microsoft Word version of
their application form, and asked you to complete it. You told them that you
found the form 'distressing'. You explained that you find typing on
keyboards 'very difficult' and 'laborious'. You repeated that you would like
the Bar Council to either complete the form for you over the telephone, or
send you an audio tape. You told them that you were now feeling 'frustrated'
and 'angry' at their long delay in taking your complaint (three months had
passed by this stage).
Mr Turner, the Executive Secretary to the PCC sent you a lengthy e-mail in
response. He told you that, given the size of their complaints department,
and their resources, they did not consider it practical for you to dictate
your answers over the telephone, or for you to supply the information using
audio tapes. He said that they did not have anyone in the department who
could speed write or take shorthand. He suggested that you supply the
answers via e-mail, taking several days if necessary. He pointed out that
you had been able to communicate with them so far via e-mail.
Mr Turner acknowledged that they were aware of their obligations under the
Disability Discrimination Act to take 'reasonable steps' to accommodate the
requirements of people with disabilities. In your case, he concluded that
the Bar Council considered it reasonable for them to adjust their
procedures, so that you could complete their form by e-mail. There was some
further contact between you and the Bar Council, in which you made it clear
that you considered their position on the matter to be unacceptable. I think
it is fair to say that relations between you broke down. They decided not to
accept any further telephone calls from you.
You complained to my Office about the Bar Council's refusal to assist you in
completing their application form. This Office also requires complainants to
complete an application form. You spoke to a member of my staff on the
telephone, who took your details, completed the application form on your
behalf, and sent it to you via e-mail to amend/agree. You made some minor
amendments to the form, then e-mailed it back to my Office. It is therefore
difficult for me to accept that the Bar Council could not do the same thing.
I should also point out that the member of staff from this Office who took
your details does not speed write, and does not know any shorthand.
In my view, it is simply not good enough for the Bar Council to say that
they do not have the staff or resources to speak to complainants over the
telephone. This implies that a sizeable proportion of the public might not
have access to the barrristers' complaint-handling system. I am thinking not
only of people with disabilities. I am also thinking of people who find it
difficult, for whatever reason, to express themselves clearly in writing,
including those whose first language is not English.
It seems to me that, if the Bar Council really do not have the resources to
communicate with people over the telephone, then they need to do something
about it as a matter of urgency. Given that the subject of complaints are
likely, by virtue of their professional training and experience, to be
extremely articulate and persuasive in writing, it seems to me that, if
there is to be any sense of balance in the complaint-handling process, the
Bar Council needs to seriously consider what steps it can take to assist
complainants who have difficulty with the written word.
In conclusion, I am not satisfied that the Bar Council's decision not to
assist you with completion of their application form was reasonable. They
appeared to decide that, because you were able to send them e-mails, you
could happily complete their application form by e-mail. However, you
explained to my Office that you cannot contemplate blank forms without
panicking.
I therefore recommend, in accordance with Section 23(2)(a) of the Courts and
Legal Services Act 1990 that the Bar Council reconsider the matter. When
they do, I trust that they will either help you complete the form, or send
you audio tapes so that you can dictate the information required. If
resources are a problem, then it seems to me that the former option would be
the most appropriate, from the Bar Council's point of view. However, that is
a matter for the Bar Council to determine.
In considering this complaint, I have been struck by the distress and
inconvenience you have experienced. You first contacted the Bar Council
eight months ago, and yet you are no further forward in terms of having your
complaint about Dr Armstrong considered. You have had to cope with a measure
of insensitivity (albeit unintentional) on the part of the Bar Council. You
have had the inconvenience of having to complain to my Office in order to
progress your complaint. For these reasons, I recommend, in accordance with
Section 23(2)(d) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, that the Bar
Council award you £200 compensation.
I am required by Section 23(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 to
report my conclusions to the parties involved. I am therefore sending a copy
of this letter Dr Armstrong of Tooks and to the Bar Council.
Section 23 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 also requires the Bar
Council to inform the Ombudsman within three months from the date of this
letter of the actions they have taken or propose to take to comply with my
recommendation. Please let me know if you do not hear directly from the Bar
Council within that time.
Yours sincerely
Zahida Manzoor CBE
Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
