Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council enacted its vexatious/ unreasonably persistent policy in relation to another of Mr X’s complaints. This is because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council labelled him as a vexatious/ unreasonably persistent complainant in contradiction to its published policy.
2. Mr X says the matter caused him distress and uncertainty.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
7. Mr X’s claimed injustice is that he is uncertain about how the decision was made, that he did not know whether he was categorised as vexatious or unreasonably persistent, and he felt the Council had not addressed his primary complaint.
8. The Council wrote to Mr X to explain:
• it considered he had become unreasonably persistent pursuing the same complaint it had already addressed;
• it had set a review date of November 2025 to reconsider the decision in line with its policy; and
• it had restricted Mr X’s contact only about the single complaint issue, it was not a blanket restriction on all contact.
9. Mr X’s original complaint to the Council which led to the policy being enforced has been addressed elsewhere. Mr X has the option of approaching another body about his primary complaint. This further limits any injustice caused to Mr X by the Council restricting his contact because Mr X has an alternative route of recourse to pursue the primary matter.
10. Consequently, Mr X’s claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation, and we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman