Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not properly dealt with a complaint about the closure of a golf course and that it has wrongly restricted his contact. The Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has not properly dealt with a complaint about the closure of a golf course because it was profitable and could have remained open and that is has wrongly restricted his contact through its vexatious complaints policy.
2. Mr X says he has not had a response to his complaint and he is now unable to contact the Council about the issue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We investigate 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 continue 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
6. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered documents provided by both Mr X and the Council. I considered a previous investigation by the Ombudsman as well as recent legal proceedings.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s complaints policy

9. Paragraph 2.3 explains a range of matters that the Council will not consider under its complaints policy.
10. Paragraph 2.4 says the Council will provide an explanation in writing of any decision not to deal with a complaint under its complaints policy.

The Council’s persistent and vexatious complaints policy

11. If the Complaints’ and Ombudsman’s processes have been exhausted and the complainant continues to correspond; then the correspondence should be considered by an officer familiar with the complaint. If it raises no significant new matters and presents no new information, the Director for complaints handling will write to the complainant to inform them that the Council will not enter into any further correspondence about the matter. (section 5.1)
12. Appendix 1 of the Council’s policy provides examples of behaviour of persistent and vexatious complainants.

What happened?

13. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
14. In 2022 the Council decided to close a golf course. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman did not find any fault.
15. Mr X complained again to the Council about the way in which it had justified the decision to close the golf course. The Council declined to consider his complaint.
16. The Council decided to restrict Mr X’s contact about the matter.

Analysis

17. The Council wrote to Mr X saying it would not investigate his complaint. It explained the reasons why it would not investigate his complaint with reference to the matters listed in paragraph 2.3 of its complaints policy, including:
• Previous complaints, freedom of information requests and emails;
• Challenges to decisions made by the Council; and
• Previous complaints to the Ombudsman.
18. The previous investigation by the Ombudsman found that:
• There was no fault in the decision making process;
• Any increase in income for the golf course would be speculative;
• Mr X presented different accounting information to the Ombudsman but there was still a net loss; and
• There was no maladministration and that the outcome would not have been affected.
19. In early 2024 a judicial review has considered whether the Council was able to dispose of the land previously used as the golf course and decided the Council was able to do this.
20. Mr X’s complaint sets out 18 questions. The nature of these is primarily around the financial viability of the former golf course in the context of the accounting processes and the accuracy of reports by the Council. I have reviewed Mr X’s complaint and supporting documents in which he has helpfully outlined a smaller number of key issues. The other matters raised by Mr X are either already answered in the public domain, are subjective, are based on skewed interpretation and/or are of minor significance.
21. The key issues relate to depreciation costs and overheads costs. These are matters that have been considered in the previous Ombudsman’s investigation.
22. The finding of the previous investigation by the Ombudsman was challenged by Mr X. On review it was upheld, with the response stating, “Allegations of financial malpractice by the Council, including your allegations of it inflating depreciation costs, would be for the Council’s external auditor not us. We can look at general administrative practices. The external auditor can look at value for money decisions.”
23. I do not consider that there is evidence of sufficient maladministration to justify further investigation.
24. Mr X is not prevented from playing golf. The quality of any golf course is subjective. I do not consider that there is significant ongoing personal injustice caused to Mr X to warrant investigation.
25. Mr X would like the golf course to be reopened by the Council. This is not an outcome we can achieve.
26. For the above reasons, I will not further investigate Mr X’s complaint about his complaint was dealt with.

Contact restriction

27. In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council took a decision to place him on its vexatious complaint register for 12 months in line with its Persistent and Vexatious Complaints Policy and Guidance, section 5, for the reasons outlined in paragraph 16. The Council told Mr X that it would not answer any future complaints in relation to the issue complained about for 12 months. Contact regarding other complaints was not restricted.
28. Mr X appealed the decision to restrict his contact by the Council and submitted information in support of his appeal.
29. The Council rejected Mr X’s appeal saying his, “continued correspondence…falls within the following criterion stated in the Vexatious Complainants Policy:

• Persistence in contacting the Council and demanding responses or action

long after the council has closed the investigation into a complaint and all

rights of review and appeal have been exhausted.”

30. Mr X says he raised new issues in his complaint. For the reasons outlined in paragraphs 17-23 above, I agree with the Council.
31. The Council considered all the information considered by Mr X. The Council followed its policy when it made its decision. As set out in paragraph 5 above, the Ombudsman cannot consider the merits of a decision where the decision making process has been followed. This is not fault by the Council.

Final decision

32. The Council was not at fault. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman