Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s actions in sending him a warning letter about his behaviour. We will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council accused him of making threats and acting in an intimidating manner towards staff and a councillor. He says it has not provided him of any examples of such behaviour and he wants the warning letter he received about his behaviour to be withdrawn.

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 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
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. In January 2021 the Council sent Mr X a warning letter about various correspondence he had sent Council officers and a named councillor which it described as unreasonable according to the Council’s Unreasonable Behaviour Policy. It also referred to other dealings with officers over the same period which it said also amounted to unreasonable behaviour.
6. The letter asked Mr X to refrain from unreasonable and intimidating behaviour and warned that if there was a repetition of this type of behaviour, it would consider taking further steps under its Policy, a copy of which it provided. In writing to Mr X the Council made clear it had considered the letter from his GP which explained Mr X’s anger and irritability condition.
7. Mr X then complained to the Council about receiving the letter. He said it amounted to bullying, that the warning letter should be withdrawn and that he wanted staff to be trained in dealing with people who have mental disabilities.
8. In responding to his complaint, the Council included a selection of emails he had sent which it said were aggressive and intimidating and had been taken into account in deciding to send him the warning letter. It also confirmed his disability and the GP letter had been considered and that staff receive training which covers disability. It did not uphold his complaint.
9. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to us and said he wanted proof of the behaviour he had been accused of.

Assessment

10. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint contained six emails he had sent which it said amounted to unreasonable behaviour. While Mr X may not agree that what he had written amounted to unreasonable behaviour, this was the Council’s view and one it was entitled to take. It considered the evidence, including his GP’s letter, and in accordance with its normal policy, sent him a warning letter.
11. We cannot review the merits of the Council’s decision and I have seen no evidence to suggest there was fault in the way it came to it.
12. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X said he was concerned that if someone was ill and had mental health issues it would be hard for them to get their issues across to the Council and to be taken seriously. He said the Council should have adequate training. In this case, the Council did take Mr X’s health problems into account in deciding to issue the warning letter and it explained to him that his disability did not mean it should take no action to protect staff and councillors from unreasonable behaviour. Additional or different disability training for staff would not mean that a warning letter would not be issued for behaviour the Council decided was unreasonable.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman