Summary: A man complained that the Council had unfairly blocked him from posting comments on its social media platform. But the Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this matter. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained that the Council had unreasonably decided to temporarily block his posts on its social media platform. Mr B said this was a breach of his right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), and the Council had not justified its decision. Mr B also said the Council did not properly consider his complaint about this matter under its complaints procedure.

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 an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 the information Mr B provided with his complaint and his comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of information from the Council about its contacts with Mr B.

Back to top

What I found

5. Last year the Council contacted Mr B with concerns about the regular posts he had been making on its social media platform. The Council said it appeared Mr B was in breach of its social media policy by continually posting comments about the same issue without presenting any new information. The Council said it would block Mr B from its account if he continued in the same manner.
6. Mr B continued to post comments on the platform. In response the Council imposed a temporary six-week block on Mr B’s use of its account.
7. Mr B complained to the Council about this matter. In response the Council confirmed its decision to block him. Mr B wanted his complaint considered at a higher level. But the Council said it would not consider matters further as it does not accept complaints about Council policies and decisions under its complaints procedure.

Analysis

8. But I do not see we have grounds to investigate Mr B’s complaint. In particular I am not convinced there is sign of fault by the Council.
9. We may not question the merits of councils’ decisions unless there is fault in the way those decisions were made. But I consider the Council appropriately followed the policy set out in its Social Media Standards in reaching its decision in Mr B’s case. I also suggest the Council took suitable account of its Unacceptable Customer Behaviour Policy in the process.
10. Mr B made a considerable number of posts on the Council’s social media platform in the weeks before he was blocked, most of which included critical comments and allegations of serious malpractice by the Council’s Children & Families service.
11. But I note the Council’s Standards say that contributors may be blocked for sending messages which persistently mention the Council in a negative or abusive context. I also note the Council’s Unacceptable Customer Behaviour Policy says an example of unacceptable behaviour is where someone contacts persistently about the same issue.
12. Mr B said the Council’s actions breached his right to freedom of expression under the HRA. But the Ombudsman has no remit to decide if someone’s rights under the Act have been breached. Only the courts can decide about that matter.
13. We can consider if the Council has had due regard to the HRA in reaching its decisions. However I note the Council considered Mr B’s allegation it had breached the HRA. But it concluded it was proportionate to restrict Mr B’s rights in this instance due to his behaviour. In the circumstances I do not see we would have grounds to fault the Council on the basis it did not have regard to the HRA in Mr B’s case.
14. Mr B was also unhappy the Council had refused to consider his complaint at a more senior level. The Council has given its reasons for not doing this and I am not convinced we could fault it in this regard.
15. But even if the Council was at fault in not going to the next stage of its complaints procedure, I am not convinced we could say Mr B was caused any significant injustice as a result.
16. In particular, from the information provided it seems unlikely further consideration by the Council would have changed its view in Mr B’s case. In addition, Mr B was still able to take his complaint to the Ombudsman for an independent view following the Council’s decision.

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to temporarily block him from access to its social media platform. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council regarding this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman