Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has managed its communications with Mr X. This is because investigation into how restrictions were removed would not lead to a different outcome, and how the Council has decided to communicate with Mr X going forward has not caused him a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council delayed removing restrictions placed on him, after it decided to treat him as a vexatious complainant. Mr X also complains about the Council’s decision that his correspondence will be dealt with by a single point of contact. Mr X says he has had to waste time asking the Council to remove restriction and feels that continues to be being treated less favourably than other residents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed removing restrictions on his communications, after it decided he was a vexatious complainant. The Council has now lifted those restrictions and apologised for the delay. This is an appropriate and proportionate response from the Council, so further investigation into this point would not lead to a different outcome.
6. The Council has said that due to the high volume of complaints and emails Mr X’s correspondence will be dealt with by a single point of contact, in order to avoid confusion and duplication. I will not investigate this element of Mr X’s complaint because I do not consider that the Council’s actions in this regard have caused Mr X a significant injustice. Mr X has not been denied access to a service and records show that he has received final responses to his complaints from a senior manager.
7. Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with his complaint about these matters. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we have decided not to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because doing so would not lead to a different outcome and because he has not suffered a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman