Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to ban him from attending any meetings regarding his stepdaughter who is a looked after child. He said the Council is preventing him from having any input into matters. Mr X said this prevents him from providing support to his wife and stepdaughter. We find the Council was at fault for failing to give proper warning and for failing to consider reviewing its decision. This caused significant distress to Mr X. The Council has agreed to several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to ban him from attending any meetings regarding his stepdaughter who is a looked after child. He said the Council is preventing him from having any input into matters. Mr X said this prevents him from providing support to his wife and stepdaughter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke with Mr X about his complaint. I considered all the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my revised draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s unreasonably persistent and vexatious contact policy

7. The Council defines unreasonably persistent and vexatious complainants as those complainants who, because of the frequency or nature of their contacts with the Council, hinder the Council’s consideration of their or other people’s complaints.
8. Before making the decision, some or all of the following steps need to be taken:
• the Council will ensure that the complaint is being, or has been, appropriately investigated according to the Council’s complaints procedure; and
• the Council will contact the complainant to discuss their behaviour, explain why their behaviour is causing the Council concern, ask them to change their behaviour and explain about the actions that the Council may take if their behaviour does not change.
9. The decision to declare a complainant as unreasonably persistent and/or vexations will be an exceptional step. It should be made by an executive director or head of service who has not been directly involved in the complaint or with the complainant. The precise nature of the action should be appropriate and proportionate to the nature and frequency of the complainant’s contacts with the Council at that time.
10. Reviews of decisions to restrict a complainant’s contacts or the Council’s responses to them should be taken by the complaints manager/legal manager/head of service.

Our good practice guide for councils on managing complainant actions

11. Our guidance states policies should be shared with service users and complainants if they start to act unreasonably. Staff should be empowered to give informal warnings to individuals who act in an unreasonable way. This gives individuals an opportunity to modify their actions. Should individuals continue to act in an unreasonable way then the matter should be escalated for further consideration.
12. If an individual has failed to adhere to any informal warning from staff then service managers should consider issuing the individual with a formal warning based on evidence. Service managers should consider any evidence staff have gathered and reach their own conclusion on whether a formal warning is necessary or whether other actions may resolve the cause of any unreasonable actions. Any formal warning should be given in writing.
13. The decision to restrict contact with an individual should be a last resort after attempts at reconciliation and warnings have been exhausted. However, we recognise that in serious cases it may be appropriate to restrict an individual’s contact with an organisation without warnings being given.
14. The decision to restrict contact should be reviewed at the end of the time period within which the organisation said it would monitor future actions. The time period will depend on the actions of the individual and any previous decisions to restrict contact. However, restrictions should be reviewed at least every 12 months.
15. When an organisation reviews restrictions placed on an individual it should write to them to advise them of its decision. If restrictions are to remain in place the organisation should explain its reasons. If restrictions are lifted the organisation may choose to warn the individual about their future conduct.
16. Organisations should be conscious of the impact restrictions may have on others when reaching a decision on what restrictions are appropriate and mitigate against this.

Summary of the key events

17. Mr X’s wife, Mrs X emailed the Council in December 2023. She raised concerns around her daughter, Y’s, dad. She also said she had not had an update from the Council following a meeting.
18. Mr X contacted the Council shortly after and said he was not happy that he was having to chase the Council for a response and said he wanted matters to be sorted.
19. In January 2024 Mrs X sent the Council details of communication she’d had with Y’s dad over the Christmas period. She said the Council’s decision to speak with him about this was having no effect.
20. Mr X contacted the Council shortly after and said matters needed to go back to court.
21. In response, the Council said it had no concerns and said there were no safeguarding concerns. Mr X disagreed with this and said if the Council did not believe matters to be a safeguarding concern, it was time someone stepped up and did their job.
22. The Council met with Mr and Mrs X in February 2024 to discuss Y. It was noted Mr and Mrs X wanted to be able to have a nice relationship with the Council.
23. Shortly after Mr X contacted the Council as he was disappointed with an email sent to his wife. He said the Council should be ashamed after promises it had made.
24. Mr X sent a further email in response to an email the Council had sent to his wife. He said the Council had agreed to one thing but done another.
25. In response the Council said:
• when it met with Mr X in February 2024, it was agreed that he and the Council wished to achieve a better relationship;
• part of working together included establishing clear lines of communication between both parties which is polite and respectful;
• despite all efforts, it has spent a significant amount of time trying to follow up on numerous emails received from Mr and Mrs X. It said many of these emails contained disrespectful and derogatory language;
• in line with its unreasonably persistent and vexatious contact policy, the decision had been made to restrict contact between the Council officer and Mr X in regard to Y; and
• the Council officer would continue to speak with Mrs X who held parental responsibility. If Mr X had any further views, he could share this via Mrs X.

Complaint to the Council

26. In Mr X’s complaint to the Council, he asked how his behaviour fit the named policy. He said he wanted an apology and full retraction.
27. In response the Council said:
• it has a zero-tolerance approach to abuse or intimidation towards staff;
• unreasonably persistent and vexatious contact policy was considered and used as a tool for staff who received his communications to consider how to move forward. Therefore, Mr X was asked to communicate acceptably;
• the arrangements in place do not disadvantage him. This is because he has the opportunity to share his opinions via Mrs X; and
• it was not stopping him from participating in the case or sharing his views.

Analysis- was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

28. The Council’s unreasonably persistent and vexatious contact policy is set out in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9. The Council has not made a decision to declare Mr X as unreasonably persistent and/or vexations. Instead, it has followed paragraph 8 as a way of moving forward. But it has made the decision to restrict his contact.
29. Mr X was asked to communicate his views via Mrs X. This is because the Council considered the emails received from Mr X to contain disrespectful and derogatory language. It also said it had spent a significant amount of time trying to follow up on numerous emails received from Mr and Mrs X. These emails contained similar concerns.
30. Our role is to consider whether there was any fault in how the decision was reached. Whilst it is for councils to decide what it considers to be disrespectful and derogatory, in line with our guidance which is detailed in paragraphs 10-15, the Council should have first issued a formal warning to lay out what the implications were before taking the action it did. I have not seen any evidence to suggest it did. This is fault. Therefore, there is fault in how the decision was reached. Mr X said he has concerns around the conflict between Mrs X and Y’s dad. He said the restrictions mean he cannot provide support to Mrs X during meetings.
31. The Council said it had no plan to review the contact arrangements for Mr X. This is fault. We would expect restrictions to be reviewed at least every 12 months.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed to:
• write to Mr X with an apology that takes account of our published guidance on remedies and accepts the findings of this investigation;
• review its decision to restrict Mr X’s contact. The Council should have regard to our guidance when doing so. Managing unreasonable actions by complainants: A guide for organisations - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman;
• if the Council decides to keep Mr X’s contact restricted, it should consider whether he can nominate someone to provide support to Mrs X during meetings; and
• if the Council decides to keep Mr X’s contact restricted, it should review its decision within 12 months of the initial restriction being put in place.

Back to top

Final decision

33. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman