Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to apply its unreasonably persistent and vexatious complaints policy to Mr X. there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council applying a restriction of contact to him following his frequent requests for it to answers points he has raised about highways matters on his estate since 2017. He believes he is being treated unfairly and that the Council should address his points.

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. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council informed him in July 2021 that it was placing restrictions on his contact under its unreasonably persistent and vexatious complaints procedure because of his continued requests about a highways matter which he has been raising since 2017. The Council says it warned him of this sanction in June if he continued to raise the same matters. Mr X feels the Council has not answered the questions which he has been raising or addressed the highways issues from when he first reported them.
7. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. In this case the Council followed the procedure correctly and Mr X was able to submit an appeal against the decision, although this was unsuccessful.
8. We will not consider the highways matters which have been the subject of Mr X’s complaints because we considered and decided a complaint about this in 2018.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to apply its unreasonably persistent and vexatious complaints policy to Mr X. there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman