Summary: The Council delayed reviewing Mr B’s designation as an unreasonably persistent complainant for two years. The result of the review was for the designation and restrictions to remain; therefore, its delay has not caused any significant injustice. The Council has apologised for the frustration caused by its delay, which is appropriate action in response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr B, says the Council failed to review his status as unreasonably persistent in 2019 and 2020, when it should review each year. The Council has decided in mid-2021 that Mr B remains named as unreasonably persistent and it will review this in 12 months, but the letter does not explain how the Council reached this decision.
2. Mr B also complains that he recently discovered the Council is acting unlawfully by changing the planning scheme on land which it purchased from him via a compulsory purchase order. Mr B says had the current scheme been the original scheme the landowners may have received higher compensation payments.
3. Mr B says the Council has never addressed his concerns over various years, and he just wants it to do so. Then there would be no need for him to keep raising queries. Mr B explains it is not unreasonable to want an answer.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated issues that have occurred since 2019. The end of this statement explains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered:
• Information provided by Mr B, including during a telephone conversation.
• Information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries, including its complaints policy and guidance on handling complaints.
9. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Unreasonably persistent complainant

10. The Council’s complaints policy includes a section about ‘abusive, persistent or otherwise unreasonable complainants.’ The policy lists the reasons the Council might decide someone is acting unreasonably. The policy says the Council will tell someone when it has decided they are unreasonably persistent and say what action it proposes, which may include terminating contact with them.
11. In 2017 the Council decided Mr B was acting unreasonably, the Council reviewed this in 2018 and renewed the decision for a further twelve months. I am not considering how the Council made these decisions, as they happened more than 12 months ago, and Mr B made no complaint at the relevant time.
12. Mr B’s complaint is about the Council failing to review this decision in 2019 and 2020, and therefore allowing it to continue.
13. The Council’s ‘Guidance on Handling Complaints’ explains how the Council deals with exceptionally persistent complainants. It says it will periodically review the decision, normally every 12 months. At review the Council should lift the restrictions unless there are good grounds to continue it, for example because of continued persistence.
14. The Council accepts it failed to review this decision in 2019 and its review in 2020 was delayed because of the Covid-19 pandemic. This work was not a priority and staff were redeployed to other work. The Council completed the review in June 2021. The Council has apologised for not reviewing Mr B’s Unreasonably Persistent Complainant status for two years. The result of the review was to continue the restrictions, so there is no significant impact on Mr B because of the Council’s delay as the outcome remains the same and his situation has not changed. Mr B has had some annoyance, time, and trouble which I consider is adequately acknowledged by the Council’s apology.
15. The Council followed the correct process to reach its decision to continue the restrictions, so I cannot challenge the decision it made in 2021. The Council shared a report with Mr B for comment, and then presented the report and Mr B’s response to a panel of managers.
16. The Council wrote to Mr B to confirm its Management Team decided to maintain his Unreasonably Persistent Complainant status for a further twelve months. There is no right of appeal, but the Council explained Mr B could complain to the Ombudsman if he is unhappy with the decision it has made. The letter did not explain the reasons for the Council’s decision. The Council accepts this but explains this is because it had already provided to Mr B the information the panel was considering which was the basis for the decision.
17. Mr B says the reason he continues to contact the Council is because it has not answered his queries, often he receives no response. Mr B says he also has new issues which the Council has not responded to. Mr B says it is not fair for the Council to say he is unreasonable because of the number of e-mails he sends, when he would not have to send them if the Council would respond. The Council says the issues Mr B raises are outside of the scope of the complaints policy as they reframe matters which have already been considered by a court or tribunal. The Council has told Mr B this. If the Council considers the issues are a repeat, then it does not respond, which is in accordance with the restrictions of its Unreasonably Persistent Complainant process. The Council should ensure to fully consider whether correspondence from Mr B contains new issues, if there are new issues not for the complaints process whether they are relevant to other areas, such as the Council’s legal team to consider.

Changing the planning scheme

18. Mr B says he recently learnt a development is unlawful because the developer is now building something different to what was originally approved by the Secretary of State. This development is where much of Mr B’s concerns stem from, as his property was the subject of a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to clear the land to allow the development. Mr B says if the current scheme had been the scheme at the time of the CPO, he likely would have received higher compensation.
19. The Council explains these concerns are a question of law and not for the Council to answer. As they relate to the development, and these issues have been to court and to the Lands Tribunal, the Council will not respond to the issues.
20. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider matters that have already been subject to court or tribunal proceedings. The matter about the changed development plan might not have been the subject of previous proceedings, but it is not for the Ombudsman or Council to decide if the development is unlawful. Mr B should seek legal advice on any options to pursue these concerns about the legality of the development and the impact on the compensation payment already awarded.

Back to top

final decision

21. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was fault by the Council which caused Mr B injustice. I am satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken. The Council has apologised for its delay in reviewing Mr B’s Unreasonably Persistent Complainant status, I do not consider I could achieve anything further so make no recommendations. Mr B has raised issues of concern which would be more appropriately dealt with by the court rather than the complaint process.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

22. The events Mr B complains about have happened over many years, so many of his concerns are late complaints in accordance with paragraph five. I decided to concentrate on events from 2019 onwards.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman