Summary: Mr X complains the Council banned him from its civic centre because he protested against serious acts of misconduct. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. And we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains he was banned from the civic centre which is an abuse of him as a vulnerable individual. He wants financial compensation to cover financial losses and damage to his health.

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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and copies of his complaints to the Council and its responses. I also considered Mr X’s comments on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X has raised other complaints about the Council which have been the subject of an investigation by the Housing Ombudsman’s Service. Part of this other complaint involved specific officers at the Council.
5. In June 2018, Mr X approached an individual working in a public library and handed her an envelope. The envelope contained a letter detailing allegations and information about an individual council officer, I shall refer to her as officer A. The individual gave the letter to officer A.
6. After discussing the letter with her manager, officer A reported the matter to the police. She was concerned partly because in the letter Mr X stated he had seen the individual walking with her and decided they were friends.
7. The Council also considered the letter. Its legal team wrote to Mr X. It explained that his continued correspondence contained disparaging remarks about officer A and was threatening and abusive in tone and content. It referred to the letter handed to a friend of officer A, in which Mr X threatened further action against the officer. Because of this behaviour the Council told Mr X he could not enter its offices at the civic centre. It advised this would last for 12 months and would be reviewed after 6 months.
8. The Council also told Mr X to direct any enquiries to a single point of contact at the Council. Mr X complained to the named contact about his exclusion from the civic offices. The officer reconfirmed the arrangements in place during Mr X’s exclusion from the Council offices.
9. The Council’s responses to Mr X’s escalating complaint show it considered Mr X’s actions to be sufficiently serious to warrant restricting his access to the offices where officer A worked.

Assessment

10. Mr X says the Council banned him from its offices because he was protesting about serious acts of officer misconduct. He says the ban was an inappropriate response to threats that he would end officers’ careers by legal means. He accuses officers of being violent and confrontational and the ban being an abuse of the perception of mental health matters. I disagree. The Council decided to prohibit Mr X from entering its offices because of his continued correspondence containing abusive and threatening content. And because he had written to a friend of officer A, making allegations against the officer which the Housing Ombudsman and the Council had previously decided were unfounded. This had distressed the officer and the Council is entitled to take action to protect its staff.
11. The Council provided Mr X with a named contact at the Council who would deal with all enquiries. While he may consider the ban inappropriate, I have not seen any evidence to show this prevented him from accessing any services.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. And we cannot achieve the financial compensation for alleged financial loss and damage to health that Mr X says is a result of being banned from the Council offices.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman