Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s treatment of him under its ‘managing unreasonable complainant behaviour’ policy. Mr C said he suffered unnecessary upset and anxiety which had a harmful effect on an existing medical condition and the restriction added delay to any routine service request. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about the Council’s treatment of him under its ‘managing unreasonable complainant behaviour’ policy. In particular, Mr C says the Council has introduced a single named point of contact he must use and threatened to seek an injunction if he did not comply with the restriction.
2. Mr C says because of the Council’s fault, he has suffered unnecessary upset and anxiety which has a harmful effect on an existing medical condition and the restriction adds delay to any routine service request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the papers provided by Mr C and discussed the complaint with him. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mr C. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s policy

7. The Council’s document ‘Customer Guide to managing unreasonable complainant behaviour’ dated November 2014 sets out its policy for managing unreasonable complainant behaviour. This document provides a definition of aggressive and abusive behaviour:

“The Council does not tolerate violence or abuse towards its staff. Violence is not restricted to acts of aggression that may result in physical harm: it also includes behaviour or language (whether verbal or written) that may cause staff to feel afraid, threatened or abused; and it may include threats, personal verbal abuse, derogatory remarks and rudeness.”

8. The Council’s policy also describes unreasonable contact as including… “a high number of calls within an hour or a day; a high number of emails/letters within a short period; and flooding the Council with the same or irrelevant information.”
9. The Council says it will send a warning before acting under its policy and provide a copy of its guide. The Council says it may not send such a warning if the complainant is abusive when it may consider taking alternative action such as involving the police or taking legal action.
10. The Council’s policy provides examples of the actions it may take:

• accepting only written contact from the complainant
• limiting the complainant to one contact point in the Council
• accepting telephone calls only on a specific day or time of day
• deciding to end our investigation of the complaint and advising the complainant in writing that we have done this and why
• ending telephone calls where we consider a complainant’s conduct is inappropriate after warning them that this will happen
• writing to the complainant to say it will read and file their letters unless they contain new information.

11. The Council says it will write to the complainant to explain its decisions and how they must contact it in the future and provide a right of appeal. The Council will review any restrictions after six months.

Key events

12. The Council warned Mr C his level of contact was excessive in October 2018 and that it would implement its unreasonable complainants’ policy if his contact remained at the same level. The Council provided Mr C with a copy of its ‘Customer Guide’ to ‘Managing unreasonable complainant behaviour’.
13. The Council emailed Mr C on 30 July 2019 about his contact and referred to the warning issued in 2018 about his level of contact. The Council warned Mr C about his level of contact as it had received 48 emails in a short period of time and told him this level of contact was unacceptable. The Council explained this level of contact had a detrimental impact on the Council providing a service to both Mr C and others. The Council said it would only reply to new emails if they contained new information.
14. 
    The Council emailed Mr C on 1 August as he had sent a further 25 emails despite its warning of the previous day. The Council provided a further copy of its ‘Customer Guide’ to ‘Managing unreasonable complainant behaviour’ with this email to highlight the action it may take if the level of contact continued.
15. The Council emailed Mr C on 7 August 2019 as it had received over 100 emails from him the previous week and several letters before action. The Council advised Mr C of his right to complain to the Ombudsman and provided the necessary contact details. The Council also provided details of its Social Care Advice and Information team in its Adult Services department and provided contact details.
16. The Council emailed Mr C on 23 August 2019 to say despite its previous warning his level of contact with the Council remained unacceptable and implemented its ‘managing unreasonable complainant behaviour’ policy by providing a single point of contact. This email also warned Mr C that the Council would consider seeking an injunction action against him if he disregarded the Council’s request. The Council encouraged Mr C to seek his own independent legal advice.
17. Mr C appealed the Council’s decision to provide a single point of contact. The Council wrote to Mr C on 26 September with the outcome. The Council confirmed its decision that Mr C should only use his single point of contact and provided new contact details. The Council confirmed it would review its decision in six months time.
18. Mr C contacted his single point of contact on 9 October for an update about his noise nuisance reports. The Council replied the next day to say they would contact the relevant team for an update. The Council provided an update to Mr C on 16 October. I do not consider any delay here to be excessive.

My consideration

19. The Ombudsman would expect any actions taken to be proportionate to the nature and frequency of the complainant’s current contacts.
20. The Council has provided evidence that Mr C has historically sent many emails often containing the same or similar information to various members of staff, elected members and other organisations. Mr C continued to email the same members of staff making complaints including serious allegations against officers of various misconduct and copying these to external organisations. The Council says the pattern and nature of this correspondence has caused officers distress and considers it to be similar to bullying. As such it may meet the definition of aggressive and abusive behaviour contained in the Council’s policy. It does sit squarely within the Council’s definition of unreasonable contact. In these circumstances, the Council’s decision to implement its managing unreasonable complainant behaviour policy was one it was entitled to reach.
21. The Council has provided good evidence it warned Mr C of the consequences of his continued contact and provided details of its policy before taking any action. I note the Council provided details of its support service to Mr C before implementing its policy.
22. The Council’s subsequent action was to appoint a single point of contact which is an action expressly set out in its policy. The Council has also considered Mr C’s appeal about this decision and will review the restriction after six months in line with its policy. I see no fault here.
23. The Council also warned Mr C it was considering injunctive action against him which does not appear expressly as an action in its policy although it does refer to possible legal action without warning if a complainant is abusive. The Council has confirmed it would have withdrawn the warning of the injunction if Mr C had complied with the single point of contact restriction. Mr C has not done so.
24. The Council has followed its policy without a resulting change in Mr C’s behaviour. In the circumstances, I do not consider the Council acted with fault in warning Mr C of its potential legal action if he did not comply with the restriction in place. It would be a matter for the court to decide the merits of any such application.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman