Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council followed its unreasonable complainant’s behaviour policy to put contact restrictions in place. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the way the Council followed its unreasonable complainant’s behaviour policy by placing restrictions on the contact he makes. Mr B says the restriction is unlawful and as result he cannot raise important issues relating to his children. As an outcome he wants the Council to provide an update on the issues he has raised.

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.

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

3. 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)

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 B complained to the Council about contact restrictions it had put in place which meant it would not always respond to his communication or direct his communication to named officers.
7. The Council wrote to Mr B in October 2025 and said it had sent two previous warning letters, but Mr B had continued to send a large volume of emails about issues it had already addressed. It said he had contacted multiple Council officers and its teams about the same issue. It explained why it was restricting how it dealt with Mr B’s contact. The letter set out new arrangements for contact and said it would review the arrangements three months later. It confirmed it had made the decision in line with its unreasonable complainant’s behaviour policy. It also asked Mr B to provide details of any reasonable adjustments he wanted it to consider.
8. The Council wrote to Mr B In February 2026 following the review of the contact arrangements in place. It said Mr B had continued to send over 150 emails throughout January 2026 about matters it had previously addressed. The letter said the contact arrangements as set out in the letter would continue for a further six months and then it would complete a review.
9. Following further contact from Mr B the Council reviewed its decision again in February 2026 and confirmed the contact arrangements as set out in its letter would continue. This second letter said the Council would review the contact arrangements one month earlier than the previous letter had stated, so after five months.
10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding to follow its unreasonable complainant’s behaviour policy. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there is not enough evidence of fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman