Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s decision to place restrictions on how the complainant can contact it. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about the Authority’s decision to restrict the type of contact it will accept from him. Mr X says his correspondence does not meet the criteria detailed in the Authority’s complaint policy for unacceptable or unreasonably persistent complainants and it did not warn him before restricting his contact.

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. (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 Mr X and the Authority.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Authority’s policy sets out its process for dealing with complainants it considers unacceptable, unreasonably persistent, or vexatious. The policy says the Authority may decide a complainant is unreasonably persistent or unacceptable if they hinder the consideration of their own or other people’s complaints due to the frequency and nature of the contact. The Authority may decide to take action in relation to the unacceptable or unreasonably persistent complainant. The actions it may take include restricting how the complainant can contact the Authority.
6. In this case, Mr X has raised many concerns about his neighbour’s planning application. The Authority wrote to Mr X and said his correspondence was putting a disproportionate burden on its resources and therefore it would only accept contact from Mr X by email to specified email addresses. The Authority said it would only respond to Mr X if he raised new issues or provided new information.
7. Mr X says his correspondence with the Authority did not meet the criteria in its policy and he was not given any advance warning before restrictions were applied. But it is for the Authority to decide if a complainant should be treated as unacceptable, unreasonably persistent, or vexatious. The Authority’s policy says the examples given are not exhaustive. There was also no requirement to warn Mr X before restricting his contact and the Authority did not need to offer to review the decision.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Authority’s decision to restrict his contact. But the Authority was entitled to decide it should treat Mr X’s correspondence as unacceptable or unreasonably persistent and I am satisfied it acted in line with its complaint policy. Therefore, it is unlikely I would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Authority.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman