Summary: Mr X complained the Council is continuing to restrict his contact with it and stopping him from accessing its services. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council :

• is restricting his contact with it and stopping him from accessing its services.
• lied about Mr X threatening his own life
• lied about referring Mr X to safeguarding

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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X. He had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered his comments before making a final decision.
5. I considered the responses the Council gave following my enquiries.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. In 2018 Mr X complained to the Ombudsman about the Council’s actions about his property.
7. Complaint ended in 2019 and the Ombudsman partially upheld it and recommended a remedy.
8. Mr X complained the restrictions on his contact are still in place and he cannot contact the Council.
9. He also said the Council lied about him threatening his own life. He added that if this were to be true, he would not have been able to access any safeguarding services because of the contact restriction in place.
10. Mr X is also unhappy the employee of the Council that he spoke to referred him to the safeguarding team.

Assessment

11. This complaint is related to a complaint Mr X made in 2018. The Ombudsman has already investigated the dispute over Mr X’s property, and I will not make any further assessment on that. This includes the conduct of individual Council officers involved in that complaint.
12. In response to my enquiries the Council confirmed there are no contact restrictions recorded for Mr X. In his investigation, the independent investigator noted the Council should have reviewed Mr X’s status as an unreasonable persistent complainer (UPC) under its policy. He recommended how the Council should improve its service.
13. In June 2019, the Council contacted Mr X and told him it lifted the UPC status and so there is no further injustice resulting from the status.
14. The Council confirmed it has records of Mr X trying to contact it, but due to the time of the call it said that call centre phones may not be available at 7:32 am. It further explained the call centre phones only have capacity to hold 12 people in the queue, and any other caller will hear engaged tone.
15. I understand that UPC matter was not investigated separately but Mr X agrees that this complaint is closely linked to his previous complaint. As a result, any injustice arising from the Council’s actions to designate him as UPC is also closely linked.
16. I do not consider that this has caused Mr X significant injustice to justify our involvement in looking at this separately. The 2018 complaint investigation has already recommended a remedy for the injustice caused, and I consider it to also remedies the injustice arising from the lack of UPC status review.
17. The Council has confirmed it tried to pay the remedy to Mr X but it is waiting for confirmation of how he would like to receive it.
18. The Council confirmed that it provided Mr X’s details to its Adult Safeguarding Team to make an assessment after Mr X said he was on hunger strike.
19. Mr X said that the safeguarding team did not contact him and therefore he inferred the Council lied about the referral.
20. In his report the independent investigating officer has outlined what happened and partially upheld Mr X’s complaint. He said the Council should have informed Mr X about its concerns for his safety at the time of referral; this did not happen.
21. Despite of the Council not informing Mr X of its concern, the disclosure the Council made to its safeguarding department was procedurally correct and made in good faith.
22. I do not consider the wellbeing concern the Council raised with safeguarding has caused Mr X any significant injustice.
23. Mr X said that even if he needed support of the safeguarding team he would not have been able to access it because his calls were blocked.
24. The Council named the ways in which Mr X can access, its safeguarding team should he wish to do that - namely through a mailbox at the Council’s offices or through Mr X’s GP. It also said it does not provide an emergency response.
25. Any emergency support Mr X may have required, as with any member of the public, could be accessed by calling emergency line 999.
26. In any case, Ombudsman investigation seeks to remove the injustice and put the person affected by it in a position they would have been before it occurred. In this case, the removal of UPC status removes any injustice that was caused by it.

Back to top

Final decision

27. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman