East Sussex County Council (19 009 618)

Category : Other Categories > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 12 Mar 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains the Council unfairly restricted his access to its service, causing him distress. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council’s decision making process and recommends the Council lifts the restriction, pays Mr X £100 for distress and takes action to prevent recurrence.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council unfairly restricted his access to its service, causing him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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

  1. I spoke to Mr X and I reviewed documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council policy

  1. The Council publishes a policy on managing unreasonable customer behaviour. This says:
    • It will provide a warning first.
    • It may decide to restrict communications only after consultation with the relevant department’s Customer Services Team and with approval from the relevant Head of Service. It will take all the circumstances into account, including consideration of the Public Sector Equality Duty.
    • Restricting contact with customers will be a final approach. It will only do this if a customer has not met its requests to behave reasonably and it is proportionate to do so.
    • It will write to the customer setting out the reasons why it is restricting communication, any restrictions, for how long, and any review dates, if applicable. It will also provide details of how to appeal the decision.
    • If may limit a customer to one type of contact (e.g. email) and/or limit contact to one member of staff.
    • It will still work to resolve the issue raised by the customer.

What happened

  1. Mr X had complained to the Council about its children’s services. The Council is considering this complaint through the statutory process.
  2. On 29 August 2019 Mr X complained to the Council that a member of staff had been rude and obstructive during a phone call with him.
  3. A Council officer, Officer A, wrote to Mr X on 4 September. He said staff felt uncomfortable dealing with Mr X over the phone and struggled to deal with his requests. In future he would take all calls, as senior manager.
  4. On 9 September Mr X called Officer A asking why he could only speak to him. He felt the Council had placed an unreasonable restriction on access to its service. Officer A explained staff felt uncomfortable and did not like Mr X recording their calls. He disagreed the restriction was unreasonable and told Mr X he could contact the Ombudsman.
  5. In response to enquiries the Council explained it had regard to its policy in deciding to restrict Mr X’s contact but considered it appropriate to depart from the policy in this case.
  6. The Council said it did not warn Mr X it would restrict his contact as it felt this would make an already strained relationship more difficult. It decided on action after discussion with Officer A’s manager and Assistant Director. It decided to nominate a single point of contact to protect staff from situations they found particularly stressful. This included Mr X recording phone calls and insisting staff handle calls in a particular way, resulting in calls becoming confrontational and difficult to handle.
  7. The Council considers Mr X has not suffered any injustice as he had full access to its service albeit through one named person.
  8. The Council has provided an internal email relating to a call with Mr X on 29 August, to show that staff had concerns. I note this reports Mr X called the Council chasing a complaint response and was unhappy about delay. The staff member taking the call notes Mr X said he had recorded it. There is nothing to suggest the staff member was unhappy with the recording or upset by the call.

Findings

  1. I cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. I must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
  2. I would expect the Council to follow its policy on managing unreasonable customer behaviour unless it has good reason for not doing so. The Council is correct to say it should not fetter its discretion.
  3. The Council has provided reasons for not giving Mr X a warning and it confirms the decision was made by relevant staff.
  4. However, the Council has provided no evidence it first asked Mr X to change his behaviour or “behave reasonably”. It has also provided no evidence it told Mr X for how long the restriction would remain or how he could appeal the decision. The Council has not given any reason for not following these parts of its policy. I therefore find the Council at fault.
  5. The Council says it decided to restrict Mr X to one named contact to protect staff. However, the Council has not provided any records which show staff were unhappy or distressed in calls with Mr X. I consider the Council has not been able to properly justify its decision to restrict Mr X’s contact. I therefore find fault in the Council’s decision making process.
  6. Mr X had no opportunity to avoid the restriction and has suffered uncertainty as to how long it will remain and how it may be lifted. While I recognise Mr X could still contact the Council and access its service, I consider he may well feel distress and outrage due to the Council acting unfairly in restricting his contact.

Agreed action

  1. To remedy the injustice set out above I recommend the Council carry out the following actions within one month of the date of my decision:
    • Lift the restriction on Mr X’s contact and write to him confirming this;
    • Pay Mr X £100 for distress and uncertainty;
    • Remind staff to follow the Council’s policy on managing unreasonable customer behaviour or record reasons why they have not;
    • Take steps to ensure the Council has records or other evidence to support any decision to restrict contact under the policy.
  2. The Council has accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I find the Council failed to follow a proper decision making process when restricting Mr X’s contact. The Council has accepted my recommendations and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings