Summary: Mr X complained that the Council unfairly restricted communication with him. The Council accepts it did not follow the correct process when it did this. We found the Council at fault. The Council has apologised and lifted the restrictions in response to Mr X's complaint. It has also agreed to carry out some service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has unfairly restricted his communication, which has left him without sufficient information regarding his child’s matter.
2. Mr X would like the Council to ensure it is following its own process correctly to ensure it does not unfairly restrict access from parents who may be in vulnerable circumstances.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

What I have and have not investigated

5. This investigation has only considered the complaint Mr X raised with the Council about restricting communication with him between March and April 2024. I have not investigated the Council’s wider involvement with Mr X’s family, or its communication with him after this time.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I have considered the comments provided before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Council is involved with Mr X’s family as he has a child who is out of school.
9. In March 2024, the Council told Mr X it was restricting his communication to email only. It gave him an email address he could use once a week and told him the Council would respond to him once a week on Fridays.
10. Mr X was told his contact with the Council was overwhelming, intimidating and aggressive so this communication plan had been put in place.
11. The Council said if Mr X did not adhere to the plan, further restrictions would be put in place.
12. Mr X complained as he says he had not been intimidating or aggressive in his communication with the Council.
13. Following a review of Mr X’s complaint, and five weeks after it was imposed, the Council removed the communication restriction. The Council accepted it had not followed its own process when it imposed the plan, as it did not consult Mr X that there was any issue with his communications before enacting the plan. It also accepted there was no evidence of Mr X having been aggressive. The Council apologised for this.
14. In its complaint response, the Council told Mr X that although it was lifting its communication restrictions, it would continue to monitor his contact going forward.
15. The Council’s failure to follow its process when restricting communication with Mr X is fault. The fault means Mr X was never given an opportunity to avoid the restrictions being imposed.
16. Mr X has described the impact this had on him. He has been concerned about reputational damage as people who are dealing with his family’s matter have been informed he has behaved in a way which warranted the restriction. He says this affected the way Council staff and the school communicated with him.
17. He also says he was left concerned about his child’s matter as he was unable to obtain information from the Council apart from once a week.
18. Mr X says he has concerns the Council is using its communication restriction policy unfairly leaving other parents without adequate contact.
19. The Council acknowledged that it did not follow its process and apologised. It also removed the restriction, in a relatively short period of time. Despite this, the Council’s fault has caused injustice.
20. On this basis, I recommended the Council make service improvements to try to avoid any unfair application of its policy in this regard.

Back to top

Action

21. Within one month of the decision, the Council will:
• remind all relevant staff of the importance of following the Council’s process correctly to ensure communication restrictions are not imposed unfairly.
22. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

23. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take some action in recognition of this.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman