What are unreasonable actions?

Unreasonable actions are those which, because of the nature or frequency of contact with an organisation, hinder the organisation’s delivery of services or consideration of complaints.

It is important that the circumstances of each complaint and complainant are taken into account. There is no universal measure for when actions may be classed as unreasonable.

Some unreasonable actions emerge over time as complainants become more persistent in pursuit of their complaint. It should be recognised that many complainants act in a legitimate but persistent manner in order to pursue their complaint. Therefore, it is important to recognise the difference between “persistent” and “unreasonably persistent” actions.

Organisations must also consider whether there are any underlying explanations for unreasonable actions. This could be due to unmet communication or support needs and so it is important that organisations have regard to their duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

Unreasonable actions by representatives

Having a representative can be helpful for many people, not just people who experience difficulties in communicating. A representative could be a friend or family member or a professional such as an advocate or solicitor. Organisations should ensure a representative has consent or other lawful basis for acting on another individual’s behalf.

Organisations should not place restrictions on representatives unless there are good reasons for doing so. For example, if a person wants to attend a meeting with a friend or family member for support there is no reason for an organisation to prevent that person from speaking in the meeting without good reason.

However, some representatives may act in a way that is unreasonable. This causes difficulties for the organisation and also the individual they are representing.

Organisations can apply their unreasonable actions policy to representatives where this is warranted. However, in doing so organisations should ensure the individual they are representing is not disadvantaged by this.

To avoid any disadvantage organisations could consider taking the following action:

• Offer to deal with the individual directly taking account of any reasonable adjustments required or requested under the Equality Act 2010.
• Offer to support the individual to find another representative (e.g. advocacy service).
• Ask the individual to nominate another representative.

Examples of unreasonable actions

There is no exhaustive list of actions that may be unreasonable as each case should be judged based on its circumstances. The following are examples of actions which may be considered unreasonable:

• Being abusive, threatening or acting in a manner intended to intimidate staff. This includes any use of racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory language. 
• Putting, or threatening to put information on social media or websites which includes personal information of an organisation’s employees without their consent and/or making defamatory statements about employees online.
• Making excessive demands on the time and resources of staff with lengthy phone calls, emails to numerous council staff, or detailed correspondence  every few days or more often, and expecting immediate responses.
• Submitting repeat contacts or complaints with minor additions/variations which the complainant insists make these ‘new’ complaints.
• Refusing to specify the grounds of a complaint, despite offers of help.
• Refusing to cooperate with the complaints investigation process. For example, failing to provide information requested that is important for the investigation.
• Insisting on the complaint being dealt with in ways which are incompatible with the adopted complaints procedure or with good practice.
• Making unjustified complaints about staff who are trying to deal with the issues, and seeking to have them replaced.
• Frequently changing the basis of the complaint as the investigation proceeds.
• Raising many detailed but unimportant questions, and insisting they are all answered.
• Providing false information and/ or submitting falsified documents from themselves or others.
• Adopting a 'scatter gun' approach: pursuing parallel complaints or contact about the same issue with various organisations.

Recording of interactions with organisations by members of the public

Modern technology now allows individuals to record interactions with organisations more easily than at any time in the past. This includes the ability to live broadcast interactions in public and private spaces. Sometimes this can be done without an organisation’s knowledge and staff may be understandably concerned about what a person may do with a recording.

However, organisations should not automatically refuse to allow members of the public to record interactions. It is important to acknowledge that organisations routinely record their interactions with the public for training and monitoring purposes. Complainants should not be prevented from making their own recording in order to have a clear record of matters that were discussed. We would expect complainants to advise staff members if they intended to record any interactions and the purpose for doing so.

Having a recording of a meeting or telephone call can be helpful to people with certain disabilities who may struggle to recollect details of what was said or be unable to read or process written records about any interactions.

Sometimes members of the public will record interactions with organisations covertly and with good reason. This could include where a member of staff is suspected of abusing someone in their care. We will consider covert recordings as part of our consideration of complaints on the basis that it can be shared with the organisation and any individuals concerned for comment. Organisations should consider taking a similar approach when considering complaints.

However, a small number of people will misuse technology and act in a way that is unreasonable. This may include:

• Recording interactions with an organisation without good reason.
• Putting recordings online without the consent of those being recorded.
• Live broadcasting interactions with an organisation without their consent.
• Manipulating or editing recordings.

Staff members who operate in public areas should be given advice on what action to take if they become aware they are being recorded as they carry out their job.