Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to respond to a petition he tabled during a meeting. Nor will we investigate the Council’s handling of his later complaint about the matter. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Nor has he suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr Q, complained that Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council will not respond to a petition he tabled during a meeting. He was expecting it to be considered by the Oversight and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB). He also complained about the Council’s handling of his later complaint about the matter.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr Q provided. I considered the information the Council provided. I considered other complaints Mr Q has made to us. And I considered Mr Q’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

4. The Council has a policy for the management of unreasonable complainants (the Policy). It sets out how it will deal with complainants whose behaviour it considers to be unreasonable because of the nature and frequency of their contact. Among other things, the Policy says it will warn someone if it considers their behaviour unreasonable and, if the behaviour continues, it will take action to restrict their contact.
5. If the Council does restrict a complainant’s contact, its Policy says it will write to them saying how they can have the decision reviewed.

What happened

6. Mr Q tabled a petition at a meeting. He thought it would be considered by the OSMB the following month. But he discovered the Council decided not to put his petition to the OSMB.
7. Mr Q complained to the Council about its refusal to put his petition to the OSMB and other matters. The Council responded saying it would not deal with his complaints. It said he had submitted “numerous complaints under a general theme despite previous responses via the Council’s complaint procedure and Ombudsman…”. The Council said Mr Q had met the Council’s criteria under the Policy described above. It told Mr Q that if he did not modify his behaviour it would consider restricting his access to its services. It gave him a copy of the Policy.
8. Mr Q then complained to us that the Council would not tell him how he could appeal against its decision that his complaint was unreasonable.

Assessment

9. We will not investigate this complaint.
10. Mr Q has made several complaints to the Council about the same broad issue. The Council is now refusing to respond to Mr Q’s complaints about the issue and has warned him about the level of his contact. It may restrict his access if he continues to contact the Council about the same issues.
11. The Council believes Mr Q’s contact is unreasonable because it has already considered and responded to the issue he complained about. The Council properly considered the nature and frequency of Mr Q’s contact with it under its policy on managing unreasonable complainants. So we are unlikely to find fault with its refusal to deal with his complaints about the same broad issue. And, for the same reason, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s warning to Mr Q that it may restrict his access.
12. Mr Q is also unhappy the Council would not tell him how he could appeal against its decision that his complaint was unreasonable. It has not yet decided to restrict his access. Mr Q has a copy of the Policy. So he can see he will have a right of review if and when the Council restricts his access, not before. So we would not criticise the Council for failing to tell him about a right of appeal that does not exist at this point. In any event, this has not prevented Mr Q from complaining to us about the matter. So I cannot see that the alleged fault has caused Mr Q significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint for the reasons given in the Assessment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman