Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council has dealt with his complaint and request for information. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault or a significant personal injustice to Mr B.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, says the Council failed to respond to his complaint that it had refused to explain its definition of the terms ‘vexatious’ and ‘repeated request’. Mr B complains the Council dealt with his request as one made under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) legislation rather than the complaints procedure.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Mr B provided and the Council’s complaints procedure as published on its website. I sent a draft decision to Mr B and considered the comments he made in reply before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. While Mr B complains the Council has failed to explain the terms ‘vexatious’ and ‘repeated request’, the term vexatious is explained in the Council’s draft complaints procedure dated January 2018, available online and referred to at the end of its complaints response. The term ‘repeated request’ is self-explanatory.
5. Mr B says the policy was not adopted until after he made his complaint in May 2019. But he wanted an explanation of the terms, and that explanation was provided in the draft complaints procedure the Council referred him to.
6. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint and said that while his request for an explanation of the terms ‘vexatious’ and ‘repeated request’ was not vexatious in isolation, it was ‘…part of ongoing FOIA requests and persistent correspondence over several years despite the council’s disclosures and explanations. This is a continuation of a pattern of behaviour and ongoing campaign to pressure the council which imposes a significant burden on the Council and is obsessive. In the circumstances we consider your request to be vexatious and is refused.’
7. It was for the Council to decide how best to respond to Mr B’s complaint and there are no reasons for the Ombudsman to criticise the Council.
8. There is also no significant injustice to Mr B arising from the way the Council responded to his complaint and provided information relating to the definition of the terms ‘vexatious’ and ‘repeated request’. The Ombudsman will therefore not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault or a significant personal injustice to Mr B.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman