Summary: Mr X complained about the Council excluding him from public points of contact on the grounds of unacceptable behaviour. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council excluding him from Council premises since 2015 and extending the ban following incidents in 2018. He says the incidents were a breach of his human rights and the Council acted unreasonably.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained about the Council extending its exclusion of him from all contact points with the public since 2015. He says he is being denied access to services unreasonably. The Council says he carried out a number of violent or intimidating actions in different public contact areas in the past resulting in damage, distress to staff and the public and involving police officers. The Council has renewed the exclusions following incidents in following years.
6. In 2018 Mr X was restrained by council officers after he was removed from a council building and he attempted to re-enter. He was detained until Police officers arrived and removed him and charged him with assault. Mr X says this was a breach of his Human Rights. The Council says his rights were not breached as he was removed to prevent disorder or crime and for the protection of the rights of others. This is permitted under the Human Rights legislation.
7. Because Mr X was charged and convicted of assault in the Magistrates Court, we cannot consider what took place. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider what had been subject to court proceedings.
8. Mr X’s access to Council buildings was reviewed at the end of 2019. The Council decided to renew the exclusion until 2021 because of his past record. He can access Council services by means of email, letter or telephone.
9. 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. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to exclude Mr X from its premises in the public interest.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman