Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to a debt for adult social care fees, because the Ombudsman has previously investigated the concern and the case has since been to court. Mr B says he raises new issues, but they are all in relation to the same matter. We will not investigate the Council’s suggestion that it might invoke its unreasonably persistent complainant procedure, because it has acted in accordance with that procedure in providing Mr B with a warning about his behaviour. Though Mr B disagrees with the Council’s action, it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council is acting unreasonably by threatening to use its ‘Unreasonably Persistent Complaints Procedure’ because he says the issues he raises are new issues and not a repetition of previous complaints. Mr B is frustrated the Council will not answer his concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr B is the executor of an estate. Mr B’s complaint is about actions the Council took to decide what debt is owing from the estate, and about Mr B’s reasons for disputing the Council’s position.
9. The Ombudsman previously considered a complaint from Mr B about these matters.
10. The Council took the case to court, and the court has decided on the debt.
11. Mr B argues he is raising new issues, but they all relate to the same matter. There are no new events the Ombudsman would investigate. Mr B continues to dispute the amount owing to the Council, but he would have to go back to court if he disagrees with the position the court accepted. The Ombudsman cannot achieve an outcome for Mr B, and it is reasonable to expect him to return to court.
12. The Council has an ‘Unreasonable and Unreasonably Persistent Complainants Procedure’. The Council told Mr B it will not consider his recent complaint because the substantive complaint has been determined by the Ombudsman and has been considered in court. The Council said although Mr B remains dissatisfied it cannot dedicate any more time to the matter, and asked Mr B to not write further on the matter. The Council advised Mr B if he continues to do so it may designate him an unreasonably persistent complainant in relation to this matter and sent Mr B its policy.
13. The Council’s policy says if it finds someone’s behaviour unreasonably persistent it will tell them why and ask them to change it. This is what the Council has done. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find the Council at fault, even though Mr B disagrees with its decision. The Council has acted in accordance with its policy in providing Mr B with a warning.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because the substantive matter has already been considered by the Ombudsman, and the court has decided on the debt which Mr B disputes. Continuing to consider issues around the matter will not achieve a different outcome. It is reasonable to expect Mr B to return to court if he wants to challenge the decision the court has made or reach a different outcome.
15. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault with the Council advising Mr B that it might use its Unreasonably Persistent Complainant policy if he continues to raise issues about the same substantive matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman