Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to restrict Mr X’s contact with it. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has restricted his contact with it. He says his contact has not been excessive, that the Council has made things up, that he cannot contact his advocate, that he has been discriminated against because of his disability and that his Reasonable Adjustments have not been met. He also says he has not been allowed to make a Subject Access Request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. In May 2024 the Council issued Mr X with a warning following his behaviour at one of its One Stop Shops.
7. In July, following numerous calls to the Council Leader’s Office and the member services team, the Council placed restrictions on Mr X contacting the Council. It said he could make contact via his nominated social worker or his independent advocate.
8. Mr X’s advocate appealed this decision on his behalf but the Council confirmed it was satisfied the restrictions were appropriate having taken Mr X’s disabilities into account and that he could still access council services while the restrictions were in place.
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complaints disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
10. While Mr X may not agree with the Council’s decision, it was one it was entitled to make and there is no evidence fault affected it. The Council took into account Mr X’s disabilities and there is no evidence it has discriminated against him because of them. Mr X told the Council he cannot write but the Council has explained he can call and speak to his nominated social worker and to his independent advocate who can contact the Council on his behalf.
11. Mr X says he has not been allowed to make a Subject Access Request. We normally expect someone to refer such a matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection as this is the body best placed to deal with it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman