Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to impose contact restrictions on him. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongfully imposed unlawful and disproportionate restrictions on how he communicates with it and deliberately involved the Police to intimidate him.
2. He says this has caused him significant distress and anxiety.
3. He wants a full and public apology a retraction of what was said and a £1,500 refund of his legal costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
5. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Following several contacts to the Highways Service, Mr X sent an email to several senior Council officers and councillors which made general derogatory comments about various officers including one in particular (Officer A). The comments were such that the Council sought advice from the Police.
9. The Council wrote to Mr X and said the comments were unacceptable. The Council also made reference to a website and said although it could not confirm ownership, it contained unacceptable personal comments about Officer A. The Council said Mr X should be aware that there were actions it and the Police could take in court to identify the domain name owners.
10. The Council said it had a duty to safeguard staff and requested Mr X sign and return several undertakings related to the website. It also said it would monitor his social media posts and report to the Police any it considered contravened the laws around defamation, harassment, malicious behaviour or data protection.
11. The Council imposed contact restrictions on Mr X, explained he must not directly contact Officer A, and said when a review would take place.
12. Mr X’s legal representative refuted the Council’s comments which it considered amounted to an infringement of Mr X’s right to free speech and harassment. In its response, the Council defended its actions. It also said that although Mr X did not admit to being linked to the website, the derogatory comments about Officer A had been removed.
13. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council is entitled to safeguard its staff and there is no evidence of fault in how it made its decision that the comments made by Mr X were unacceptable. It was also entitled to inform Mr X of the actions it would take if he continued to post comments it considered unacceptable. When it imposed contact restrictions, it informed him of how he could contact the Council, how long the restriction would last and when the review would take place. There is no evidence of fault in any of these actions.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman