Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to restrict his contact. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has reached its decision and so we cannot question its merits.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to restrict his contact. The Council has appointed Mr X a single point of contact, he is not allowed to enter the Civic Centre, and can only contact the Council by using a specific email address.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I considered information from the Council and gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

Council policy

5. The Council has a “Managing Unreasonable Customer Behaviour Policy” which is available on its website. This explains that unacceptable or unreasonable behaviour from customers may include:
• Using abusive or foul language on the telephone or face to face.
• Sending multiple emails or voicemails about the same issue while the matter is being investigated or after it has been dealt with.
• Making an unreasonable number of contacts with the Council or making unnecessarily excessive demands on the time and resources of staff.
• Making unjustified complaints about council staff.
6. The policy says that “vexatious requests” are those “likely to cause distress, disruption or irritation, without any proper or justified cause.”
7. There are three stages in the Council’s policy it will follow before designating someone as unreasonable, unreasonably persistent, or vexatious.
• The Council will confirm the original complaint or request has been or is being dealt with properly.
• The Council will issue a warning to the customer asking they modify their behaviour.
• If the customer does not modify their behaviour, the Council may decide to limit the person’s contact. This can include limiting the method of contact, requiring the customer to communicate with only one person, or refusing the customer access to council buildings.
8. When the decision has been taken to limit a customer’s contact, the Council’s policy says it will write to explain the action taken. The Council will advise how long the restrictions will last and when the decision will be reviewed.

What happened

9. Mr X has been in regular contact with the Council about several issues. In July 2019, the Council wrote to Mr X and said it was concerned he was “taking a disproportionate amount of officer time”. It was concerned about “the personal targeting of individual council officers”. It said that if Mr X continued to behave in the same way, it would restrict his contact in line with the Council’s published policy.
10. Mr X responded and imposed his own “Managing Unreasonable Behaviour Policy” on the Council.
11. In November 2019, the Council wrote to Mr X with a “Decision to restrict contact.” The Council said Mr X had made “a number of unfounded / malicious allegations against council officers”. It said Mr X had attended the Civic Centre in Hartlepool where he “acted in an aggressive and threatening manner.”
12. The Council said it had appointed Mr X a single point of contact and he was not allowed entry to the Civic Centre. The Council said Mr X could only contact it using a specific email address. The restrictions would remain in place for 6 months and would be reviewed in April 2020. The Council would then either remove the restrictions or decide to continue with them.
13. Mr X denies being aggressive toward Council staff, but accepts he raised his voice. Mr X says the Council’s actions are a “retaliatory act” after he involved the police when council officers visited his property.

Assessment

14. The Ombudsman is not a right of appeal for people who disagree with a council’s decision. Our role is to look for administrative fault. We have no powers to question a council’s decision which has been properly taken.
15. Based on the evidence available, the Council has properly followed and applied the key points of its “Managing Unreasonable Customer Behaviour Policy”. The Council warned Mr X it was considering limiting his contact. It decided to do this because of Mr X’s behaviour – which the Council decided was unacceptable. In line with its policy, the Council told Mr X what arrangements were in place and how long they would apply for.
16. While I know Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, there is no evidence it has not followed its published process. Its decision to limit Mr X’s contact is one the Council is entitled to take. Without evidence the Council has not followed its published policy, there is no scope for the Ombudsman to become involved.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has reached its decision and so we cannot question its merits.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman