Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s use of its unreasonably persistent complainants policy. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has imposed restrictions on him, refusing to engage with him and his representatives. He says the Council is treating him as vexatious in order to cover up corruption, conspiracy and fraud that he complained about, and it has failed to consider the impact of these restrictions on him given his disabilities.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X has raised several complaints with the Council. The courts were involved in relation to his care and support assessment, which Mr X says involved corruption, conspiracy and fraud. The court decided the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s needs was lawful.
6. This complaint is about the Council’s subsequent decision to use its unreasonably persistent complainants policy, as Mr X continued to contact the Council and various other organisations about his complaint. The Council originally placed restrictions on Mr X’s contact in April 2021, including using a single point of contact and communicating via an advocate.
7. The Council has explained to Mr X the frequency, content and nature of his correspondence hinders its ability and capacity to engage with other complainants. It has explained that it considered its duty to ensure Mr X receives an equitable service despite his disability. It has weighed this against the impact of his communications on the Council and the health and wellbeing of its staff. It explained it had decided the restrictions were necessary and reasonable. The Council has kept the restrictions under review, and it has explained to Mr X what steps it may take should he continue to contact it in this manner.
8. The Council has taken the steps we would expect and there is not enough evidence we would find fault in its actions if we investigated this complaint. A court decided the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s needs was lawful, so there is no substantive evidence of corruption, conspiracy and fraud and no basis for me to find the Council is using its unreasonably persistent complainants procedure as a way to cover these up as Mr X claims.
9. In any event, the restrictions do not cause Mr X an injustice. Mr X previously had the benefit of substantial additional time spent on his complaints than others received. The restrictions remove this benefit. Loss of a benefit is not the same as suffering a disadvantage. The restrictions do not prevent Mr X from raising new and valid concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman