Summary: The Council was entitled to decide to apply contact restrictions to the complainant because of the volume of his correspondence. The Council was at fault because it did not set a review period for the restrictions, in accordance with its policy, and also because its records of the restrictions it imposed are difficult to follow. Neither of these faults caused an injustice to the complainant, but the Council should take steps to address them. The Council was also at fault for the delay in a complaint response, but this also did not cause an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, to whom I will refer as Mr W, says the Council has wrongly decided to impose restrictions on his communications with it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr W’s complaints correspondence with the Council, a summary of his other correspondence, a letter from the Council to me, and a copy of the Council’s Vexatious Complaints policy.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr W lives with and cares for his elderly mother. The Council has also commissioned a home care package for Mr W’s mother. There have been several different care providers involved in delivering the care package, because arrangements have frequently been terminated, either by the care provider or by Mr W.
7. The Council imposed restrictions on Mr W’s communication in February 2019. This was because he frequently contacted the Council with complaints or requests relating to his mother’s care, but it considered the volume of emails and phone calls was such that it was becoming difficult to manage. The Council arranged for Mr W to have a pre-arranged once monthly slot to discuss with a named social worker any concerns he had. The Council says it explained these restrictions to Mr W, in person, during a meeting with a senior Council officer. It also wrote to Mr W’s MP to explain the restrictions, as Mr W had made an additional complaint through him.
8. In May 2019, the Council gave its final reply to one of Mr W’s complaints. Part of this complaint was about allegedly poor communication by the Council. The Council explained again its limited resources and the impact Mr W’s frequent contact was having. It said the senior officer whom Mr W had met in February was happy to be his point of contact, but asked he put all comments or complaints in writing to this officer, rather than by phone. The officer would then respond once a month, except for urgent issues. The Council also said it would not respond to any matters it had already addressed.
9. The Council says it held a meeting with Mr W on 11 November 2019. At this meeting, it agreed that Mr W’s mother’s allocated social worker would set aside one fixed hour per week to call Mr W to discuss any new issues or complaints he wished to make.
10. However, in a complaint response on 28 November, the Council said this arrangement was not sustainable. It therefore said it wished to revert to the previous arrangement, with Mr W have a pre-arranged monthly slot to speak to the social worker. Mr W could also email the social worker with any urgent issues, which she would address as appropriate.
11. Mr W made a further complaint immediately after this. He then contacted the Ombudsman on 16 December. We confirmed the complaint was premature at that time.
12. The Council sent Mr W a final response to his complaint on 16 June 2020.
13. The Council acknowledged Mr W’s view his correspondence was not excessive, but maintained its position it was. The Council said, since its response of 28 November, Mr W’s level of contact with the Council had increased significantly, with weekly calls and emails to its complaints team and requests for responses in a short timeframe. The Council said the current care provider had also reported similar difficulties with Mr W. The Council urged Mr W to adhere to the contact restrictions.
14. The Council also explained there was no requirement in its policy for Mr W to agree to the restrictions, or sign to that effect.
15. Mr W then referred his complaint back to the Ombudsman on 7 July.

Back to top

Background

16. The Council’s Vexatious Complaints policy sets out the types of behaviour it considers unreasonable, and the steps the Council might take if it considers it appropriate to apply the policy to a complainant.
17. An example of unreasonable behaviour from the policy is:

“making excessive demands on the time and resources of staff with lengthy phone calls, emails to numerous Council staff, or detailed letters every few days, and expecting immediate responses, thereby placing a burden on the Council.”

18. Steps the Council says it will consider taking where appropriate include:
• limiting the number and duration of contacts with staff to a weekly/monthly basis;
• offering a restricted day and time slot for necessary calls;
• limiting the complainant to one method of contact;
• requiring the complainant to communicate only with one named member of staff;
• restricting issues that will be responded to.
19. The Council’s policy also says, when it decides to impose restrictions, a senior officer will write to confirm this, and explain how long the restrictions will last before being reviewed.

Back to top

Analysis

20. Although Mr W has raised a significant number of complaints with the Council about his mother’s care, he has confirmed the only issue he wishes to pursue with the Ombudsman is the Council’s imposition of contact restrictions on him. I will therefore not refer to the substantive complaints about his mother’s care in my consideration here.
21. The crux of Mr W’s complaint is that the Council has unreasonably and unnecessarily imposed restrictions on his contact, because he considers his correspondence is not of a volume to warrant such restrictions.
22. The Council, in common with most, if not all, local authorities, has a policy on how it will deal with unreasonable behaviour. It is entitled to have such a policy, and in fact I would likely criticise the Council if it did not. It is worth noting the Ombudsman has a similar policy.
23. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide when and how the Council should apply its policies. We do not provide an appeal route against the Council’s decision, and we do not seek to substitute the Council’s judgement on such matters with our own. Our role is only to ensure the Council has properly administered its decisions and their implementation.
24. I asked the Council to give me a summary of Mr W’s correspondence with it. It said, for example, between 10 July and 11 November 2019, there were 47 recorded calls and emails from Mr W. I note, in particular, this was at a time when Mr W was supposed to be having pre-arranged contact with the Council once per month. I am satisfied it was reasonable for the Council to view Mr W’s contact as excessive, and, as this is one of the grounds for it to impose restrictions, I am satisfied doing so is in accordance with its policy.
25. I note also, despite the restrictions, the Council ensured there remained a facility for Mr W to contact it and discuss any concerns he had about his mother’s care. There is no suggestion the restrictions prevented him from raising valid issues.
26. I find no fault here.
27. I am, however, critical of the Council on a number of points.
28. First, the Council has conceded it did not set a review period for the restrictions, in accordance with its policy. This is fault.
29. This said, I do not consider this has caused Mr W an injustice. It seems clear he has not sought to abide by the restrictions, and so on the balance of probabilities, it appears likely the Council would have re-imposed them anyway, even if it had held regular reviews. The Council has also confirmed it will now complete a review by the end of January 2021, and so I do not consider there is any further recommendation for me to make here.
30. Second, although the Council has provided me with various letters to Mr W in which it has explained the restrictions, it is difficult to follow precisely what restrictions it imposed and when.
31. In the first case, it appears the restrictions were explained to Mr W verbally in February 2019. The same restrictions, but with a different point of contact, were then confirmed in writing in a complaint response in May. A different set of restrictions were agreed at a meeting on 11 November, and these were then explained in writing, but also revoked and replaced with the original restrictions, in a letter on 28 November. This is all unnecessarily confusing, to the point where I consider it fault.
32. I am not persuaded this represents a significant injustice to Mr W, as it is clear he was aware of the restrictions the Council had imposed. However, I consider it would be best practice for the Council to send a formal email or letter each time it imposes restrictions, separate from any concurrent complaint response. The letter or email should explain:

• what the restrictions are;
• why they are being imposed;
• how long they will last before being reviewed;
• the grounds on which the Council will revoke the restrictions upon review; and
• any further steps the Council might take if Mr W fails to adhere to the restrictions.

33. By doing this, the Council will ensure its decisions are properly documented in the case of further complaints. I make a recommendation to this effect.
34. Third, I note there was a significant delay in the Council’s response to Mr W’s complaint in November 2019. The Council did not respond until June 2020, despite the fact the Ombudsman had referred the matter back to it in December after Mr W’s initial, premature, approach to us.
35. The Council says this delay was partly due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on its resources. I appreciate the effect the pandemic has had on local authorities’ ability to respond to complaints. But, given Mr W’s complaint had already been outstanding for four months before the UK went into lockdown, I am not convinced this is an adequate explanation for the delay.
36. This said, I again do not consider this represents an injustice to Mr W. It had already explained to him the reasons it was imposing the restrictions, and the Council’s response of June 2020 simply reiterated these points. There is no reason to believe Mr W was materially disadvantaged by the Council’s failure to reply formally sooner, and I can see from the evidence provided by the Council Mr W continued to make contact with during the period the complaint was outstanding.

Agreed action

37. The Council has already confirmed it will complete a review of Mr W’s contact restrictions by the end of January 2021. Although this does not form part of my recommendation, once the Council has completed the review (and if it decides to re-impose restrictions on Mr W), it has now also agreed to send a separate formal letter to confirm the restrictions, in line with my comments in the previous section. The Council should also ensure it sends a similar letter after any future review, where it decides to maintain restrictions.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault which did not cause injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman