Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about contact being restricted by the Council because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating or Mr Y’s complaint about highway disrepair because it does not tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council wrongly threatened to restrict his contact after he complained about the condition of the grass verge, pavement and drainage outside his home through contacting his local Member of Parliament (MP). He has also complained about the Council’s failure to repair and carry out maintenance works on the verge, pavement and drainage near his home, which he says is damaged and in poor repair.
2. Mr Y says he is concerned about the pavement being a safety hazard and felt threatened and intimidated by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to maintain and repair a verge, pavement and drainage near his home. The complaint issues have previously been considered by the Ombudsman under reference 25009139. It would not be a good use of public resources to reconsider a complaint where we have previously made a final decision, and this would not be in the public interest.
8. Mr Y has also complained the Council has threatened to restrict his contact under its Managing Unreasonable Behaviour Guidance (MUBG). The Council issued an informal warning to Mr Y to reduce the number and frequency of his contacts with the Council over the highway maintenance issue in October 2025. It explained that this was due to the volume of contact to several staff at the same time was placing an undue burden on its resources and staff time.
9. As Mr Y continued to contact the Council repeatedly, either in writing or to report the same issue on the highway, it later decided in May 2026 to provide Mr Y with a single point of contact and managed his expectations around when or if the Council would review and respond to his correspondence.
10. Under the Council’s MUBG it explains what it considers to be unreasonable behaviour, which includes constant contact with a service or employee about the same issues without presenting new information or contacting multiple officers about a particular issue. It then provides a flowchart of its process for managing such behaviour. This policy is similar to the Ombudsman’s own policy relating to this type of issue, and how the Ombudsman, where necessary may restrict contacts.
11. In this case, while Mr Y may disagree, the Council has considered the level of contact from Mr Y on the same subject and in its view has considered it to be unreasonable. It has then acted in line with its process and applied its policy to the circumstances. As the Council has considered the matter and acted in accordance with its policy, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating or Mr Y’s complaint about highway disrepair because it does not tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman