Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to restrict his contact in August 2025 and that it deliberately withheld relevant information from him related to an unadopted highway. There is insufficient evidence of fault and any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not follow its procedure before deciding to restrict his contact in August 2025. He says this makes the decision unsound. He also complains the Council withheld relevant information from him during its communications related to an unadopted highway.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. 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 X complains the Council did not offer him a meeting with a senior manager or send him a formal warning letter before deciding to restrict his contact in August 2025. He says this failure to follow its published procedure makes the decision unsound.
7. In its response to Mr X’s appeal of the decision, the Council acknowledged it had not sent him a formal warning letter but said it had previously advised him that it had concerns about his communications in an email. It said although a meeting with a senior manager was an option in its policy, it was not a requirement. It said in Mr X’s case it had not considered a meeting to be suitable.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. I do not consider the lack of a formal letter caused Mr X a significant injustice, as he was already aware of the Council’s concerns about his communication. The letter advising Mr X of the decision to apply restrictions appropriately set out the Council’s reasons and gave him the opportunity to appeal.
9. In its appeal response, it explained why it had not offered a meeting and maintained that the restrictions were appropriate. The Council’s policy does not require it to offer a meeting before applying contact restrictions and a decision to apply restrictions is one the Council is entitled to reach. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to warrant an investigation.
10. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council deliberately withheld information from him. The Council has told Mr X that it did not consider the information to be relevant. I have seen no evidence to indicate the Council was deliberately withholding information and the information Mr X refers to is within the public domain. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman