Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council informing Mr X that it would take further action against him if he persists in harassing its officers. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says he received a letter from the Council’s Chief Executive which threatened to report his behaviour to the police or the courts if he persisted complaining about Council officers. He says this caused him anxiety and distress and the Council should apologise.

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. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has been complaining about a housing tenancy matter to the Council for over a year. He has complained to the Housing Ombudsman service because he is a social housing tenant. We cannot consider complaints about social housing landlords.
7. In 2021, after applying its unreasonable complainants procedure to him, the Council’s Chief Executive wrote to Mr X and advised him that if he persisted in harassing its officers further, he may be referred to the Police or the civil courts. Mr X says he was upset by this threat which he says was unreasonable.
8. The Council as an employed is required to prevent its officers from being harassed by the public. Where the unreasonable or persistent complainants procedure has failed moderate this behaviour a council could serve the perpetrator with a Community protection Notice which is a legal notice preventing anti-social behaviour.
9. It was reasonable for the Council to warn Mr X about possible further action because such a Notice has serious consequences if someone breaches the requirements. This can result in a fixed penalty or court action and the letter to Mr X was a statement of fact rather than a threat to him.
10. The Ombudsman may not question the merits of decisions which have been made in a proper manner. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council informing Mr X that it would take further action against him if he persists in harassing its officers. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman