Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint the Council has placed restrictions on her communication. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council has made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, complains the Council has restricted her communication and said she cannot visit the Civic Centre. Ms B wants the Council to remove the restriction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. 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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Ms B provided when she made her complaint, the Council’s letter to her dated 25 July 2019, Ms B’s previous Ombudsman complaint and the Council’s ‘Unreasonable and unreasonably persistent complainants policy’. I sent a draft decision to Ms B and invited comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B has previously contacted the Council to complain about noise nuisance caused by a neighbour. The Council has investigated Ms B’s complaints and decided there is no noise nuisance. Ms B complained to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman decided not to investigate as there was unlikely to be fault with the way the Council had made its decision.
6. The Council told Ms B in July 2019 that her complaints about noise had reached a conclusion and the Council would not hold any more meetings with her about this matter. The Council also told Ms B it would enforce its unreasonable or persistent complainants process if Ms B continued to pursue the same, or similar complaints.
7. Ms B then contacted the Council again to request a further meeting and made a further complaint about noise from her neighbour’s radiator.
8. On 25 July 2019, the Council wrote to Ms B and said it had decided to restrict her contact. The Council referred to its ‘Unreasonable and unreasonably persistent complainants policy’, enclosed a copy and explained that it considered Ms B’s contact fell within the policy. The council told Ms B she could only contact the Council in letter format, addressed to one named individual so her contact could be monitored. The Council would not register or process further complaints about the same noise matters and would not reply to correspondence it deemed to be offensive or derogatory. The Council would also not answer queries Ms B raised by telephone.
9. While Ms B disagrees with the Council’s decision to restrict her communication, the Ombudsman can only criticise the Council if its decision was made with fault. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault because the Council has considered the level and nature of Ms B’s contact and its policy before applying the restriction. The Council has told Ms B it will review its decision in 12 months.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council has made its decision.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman