Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has tried to prevent the complainant from raising concerns about services it provides. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has tried to prevent him from raising concerns about its services, and says its approach was rude and threatening which he found terribly stressful.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start 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.

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

3. With regard to the first bullet point, we can 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)
4. And in relation to the second and third bullet point, we do not start an investigation if we decide the impact of the fault a person complains about is not so significant that we should investigate. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• the Council’s ‘Abusive, persistent, or vexatious complaints policy’
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X had contacted the Council about a business rates issue. In its response, the Council also said it would:

“like to take this opportunity to raise concerns regarding the multiple complaints you appear to have initiated. Upon preliminary review, I note that you have submitted several complaints in a relatively short period, which have not been substantiated by us or by external oversight authorities. While we welcome appropriate feedback, please ensure our complaints process is used reasonably and thoughtfully.

I will monitor your communication for the next three months to determine whether it may require escalation for consideration of vexatiousness. I trust no such escalation will be necessary and thank you in advance for your understanding.”

7. I appreciate Mr X might have felt upset by the Council’s observations and subsequent complaint responses. But it was entitled to raise/highlight any concerns it had about Mr X’s communications, and I do not consider its approach/tone was rude or unprofessional. Furthermore, the Council has not yet imposed any restrictions on Mr X’s communications or prevented him from making contact.
8. Overall, and with reference to paragraphs 2 to 4 above, I find there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has caused Mr X a significant personal injustice, so we will not start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has caused him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman