Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s use of contact restrictions in line with its persistent and unreasonable complainant behaviour policy. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation, and it has not caused the complainant significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has unfairly imposed and extended contact restrictions on him in line with its complainant behaviour policy.

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 the Council, and the Council’s complainant behaviour policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In March 2023 the Council applied its persistent and unreasonable complainant behaviour policy to designate Mr X as an unreasonable complainant. It said it would only accept emails from him to a single point of contact so it could manage his contacts effectively.
6. In October 2024 Mr X contacted the Council to request a review of this decision. The Council told Mr X that the policy has been applied fairly and with just reason, and that the restrictions would continue for a further twelve months. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman.
7. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision. This means we cannot comment on the decision or its outcome. The Council is entitled to consider from past experience Mr X would be likely to resume the patterns of behaviour which led it to impose restrictions, and so to extend them as it has done.
8. There is also no evidence the Council’s decision has caused Mr X significant injustice by preventing him from accessing Council services. There is nothing to prevent him emailing his requests to the address the Council has provided.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, nor of it causing Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman