Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council restricted his communication with it and gave him a second-rate service in dealing with his complaints and queries. The Council has communicated with Mr X appropriately and has not caused him injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council, in March 2019, placed him on its restricted person register and refused to accept emails from him. He doubts if his emails had that much impact on the Council. Mr X says the Council communicated with him by email and he does not know where he stands. He wants the Council to remove his name from the register and end the restrictions.
2. Mr X complains that the Council denied him access to its complaint procedure and gave him a second-rate service. He says the Council has ignored his queries and complaints made before March 2019. He wants the Council to provide a full answer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
6. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered Mr X’s information, comments, and his reply to my draft decision statement. I have obtained his correspondence with the Council.

Back to top

What I found

8. On 23 March 2019, the Council wrote to Mr X to say it had placed his name on its restricted person register for 18 months. This was due to the number of emails sent to different departments and the impact on officer time. The Council explained the special communication arrangements including not replying to emails and communicating by post. The Council informed Mr X it would not reply where it had already done so, where information was on the internet, and where a Council service was not involved. The Council has confirmed with me that the restriction ended on 21 September 2020.
9. Mr X has communicated frequently with the Council including about the following:

Council Tax

10. Delay in refunding council tax when he had sent the refund form three times. The Council had written to Mr X advising him there was a credit of £102. On 23 January 2020, the Council wrote to Mr X and explained that the original refund form was sent to him in January 2019. It had not received in the post a request for a refund and the credit no longer existed having been applied to his 2019-20 account.
11. On 27 May 2020 Mr X wrote to the Council saying his most ‘grave and urgent’ matter was the Council taking, via direct debit, money from his bank account between December 2019 and March 2020. This was without prior notice as required under the direct debit scheme. The Council’s complaint reply of 13 November 2020 says it does not notify direct debit changes to save money. It says it would refund the amount of £5 to Mr X if requested to do so. However, it would then bill him for the amount.
12. On 28 August 2020 Mr X sent the Council a query about how it would handle council tax non-payments arising during the covid crisis. He made a freedom of information request about the amount of government financial support during the crisis, the Council’s income and expenditure, the amount spent on covid relief, and the position with Council reserves.

The Library Service

13. In October 2020 Mr X complained to the Council that library computer sessions are advertised as lasting 45 minutes but stopped early after 42 minutes. Mr X says this could have a huge impact on people who unexpectedly run out of time. The Council replied to this complaint saying it was working on the computer problem and meanwhile it had altered information to show sessions last 40 minutes.
14. Mr X’s letter of August 2020 made a freedom of information request about the library services covid plan and asked why only one computer was available when there are many desks. He asks what library staff had done during the months the library was closed due to the crisis.

Street Gully Cleaning

15. In February 2020 Mr X asked the Council to clear street gullies and clear mud, leaves, and tree debris from a street. This is not in the area of his address supplied for this complaint. The Council told Mr X it would consider the matter.
16. In August 2020 Mr X wrote to the Council saying he had not heard anything following his street cleaning request and had not been provided a reference number. He does not mention the condition of the street.

Street Parking

17. On 20 January 2020 Mr X asked the Council if there was a byelaw preventing commercial vehicles parking in residential areas and if so requested a copy.
18. On 22 January, the Council wrote to Mr X and informed him generally HGV’s are not allowed to park on residential streets. For other vehicles, the position depends on specific restrictions.
19. On 28 August Mr X wrote to the Council, referring to its January reply, saying that a large transit van had been parked in a residential area since February causing annoyance. The vehicle was said to be opposite on Mr X’s street but not his home.

Soiled Envelopes

20. On 28 February 2020, the Council received a letter from Mr X raising various issues. Mr X asks if the Council keeps a record of the number of soiled envelopes sent by residents. He asked the Council to provide the information for the period between 2017 and 2019. The Council replied the same day saying it does not collect such data.
21. In May Mr X wrote to the Council and asked it to deal with his query about soiled envelops as a freedom of information request.
22. Subject Access and Freedom of Information requests
23. There is reference to requests for information in 2019. Mr X has made freedom of information requests about the Council’s finances, library service, and soiled envelopes (referred to above).
24. In February 2020 Mr X requested copies of data access requests made between 1 January 2017 and 18 February 2020.
25. On 13 February the Council replied: ‘writing on a communication that has been sent to you is unhelpful and discourteous and could result in you requesting a copy of that letter late as it is not held by you.’
26. In May Mr X requested copy of his communications between 1 July 2019 and 31 May 2020.
27. Mr X’s letter of 10 August includes questions about the Council’s restricted persons register. He asks how the information is stored, how people are identified, and whether he can see his own entry.
28. On 12 August, the Council wrote to Mr X saying it had provided information and that he had a right to go to the Information Commissioner.

Other

29. In February 2020 Mr X asked the Council whether it had entered any London Borough of culture competitions and to explain its reasons for doing so or not. The Council’s reply invites Mr X to give details of what he is referring to.

Analysis

30. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the following reasons:
31. There is no reason to investigate the restriction placed on Mr X requiring him to communicate by post rather than email. The Council explained clearly to Mr X how he should communicate. The restriction ended in September 2020. There is nothing to achieve and in the circumstances it would not be a good use of limited public resources to investigate.
32. The Council has not caused Mr X injustice by how it handled his communications and complaints. The Council has spent considerable time replying to Mr X about fairly minor matters and what appear, at times, unnecessary communications. It advised Mr X in June that he could complain to the Ombudsman and sent a complaint reply to him in November.
33. Events before 15 February 2019 are outside the Ombudsman jurisdiction being made outside the permitted period of 12 months (see paragraph 4 above). Mr X complains late in particular about what happened to his council tax refund. There is no reason to investigate because Mr X could have complained sooner and there does not appear to be ongoing injustice.
34. There is no reason to investigate the Council’s reply to subject access or freedom of information requests. It is reasonable for Mr X to go to the Information Commissioner who has powers to investigate (see paragraphs 5 and 6 above).
35. The Council does not need to reply further to Mr X about matters which predate this statement unless there is significant new information.

Back to top

Final decision

36. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council restricted his communication with it and gave him a second-rate service in dealing with his complaints and queries. The Council has communicated with Mr X appropriately and has not caused him injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman