Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the actions of the Council in relation to car meets in its carparks. This has already been the subject of a previous investigation. We will also not investigate his complaint about the Council’s decision to place restrictions on his contact with the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has failed to:
• take appropriate action over car meets in its carparks;
• have proper consideration of his reasonable adjustments when it told him it was placing him on its persistent and vexatious list and limiting his contact with officers; and
• respond appropriately to his subject access request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has already complained to us about how the Council deals with care meets in its car parks. We decided we would not investigate because there was no evidence of fault by the Council. We will not consider this matter again.
7. The Council has made reasonable adjustments in how it communicates with Mr X who says he cannot communicate in writing. As a result, Mr X will telephone the Council when he wants to complain and the Council will attempt to provide a verbal response. However, it has now placed him on its persistent and vexatious list. It has explained this is because of his threatening and abusive behaviour towards officers on the telephone. It has given Mr X a single point of contact which he can telephone once a week unless he needs urgent access to its services. The Council has not said it will not speak to Mr X on the telephone but that it is within its rights to confirm its position on communication and other matters in writing as well. Because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, we will not investigate this complaint.
8. If Mr X is unhappy about how the Council has dealt with his subject access request he can complain to the Information Commissioner's Office which is better placed to consider complaints of this nature.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints. We have previously investigated some of them. There is no evidence of fault in relation to those complaints that are new.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman