Policy led approach

Organisations want to deal with service users and complainants in ways that are open, fair and proportionate. A considered, policy-led approach helps staff to understand clearly what is expected of them, what options for action are available, and who can authorise these actions. Policies should be shared with service users and complainants if they start to act unreasonably. This can help in managing their expectations and their actions, as far as possible, while the substance of their complaint is addressed.

Informal warnings

Staff should be empowered to give informal warnings to individuals who act in an unreasonable way. This should be explained in any policy or procedure. 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.

In the majority of cases an informal warning should be given before further action is taken.

Formal warning

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. This may include:

• Exploring whether the individual requires any reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
• Offering to meet or speak with the individual to understand any concerns that may be causing them to act in an unreasonable way.
• Offering mediation if the individual requires ongoing services from the organisation.

Any formal warning should be given in writing, where appropriate, and should explain:

• Actions the organisation considers unreasonable;
• Examples of actions considered unreasonable;
• A time period within which future actions will be monitored and when / how / by whom any restrictions on contact or other actions will be reviewed;
• Consequences of failing to address their actions;
• A check on whether the individual requires any reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010; and
• Details of the organisation’s complaints process if the person is unhappy with their warning.

Decision to restrict contact

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.

Given the seriousness of the decision to restrict a person’s contact, organisations should give careful consideration as to who is best placed to reach such a decision depending on the size and structure of the organisation.

Any decision to restrict contact should be given in writing, where appropriate (and with regard to any agreed reasonable adjustments), and should explain:

• Actions the organisation considers unreasonable;
• Examples of actions considered unreasonable;
• A time period within which future actions will be monitored; and when / how / by whom any restrictions on contact or other actions will be reviewed;
• Consequences of failing to address their actions;
• Confirmation the organisation has considered the individual’s rights under human rights and equality act legislation; and
• Details of the organisation’s complaints process or details of the Ombudsman if the complaint process has been exhausted.

Reviews

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.

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.

Further action

In a small number of cases decisions to restrict contact have no effect on a complainant’s actions. In most cases, restrictions put in place will help staff to manage the impact this has on services.

However, in the most serious cases, further action may be necessary, particularly where a complainant’s actions are having an adverse impact on staff welfare.

Where an organisation is considering placing legal restrictions on an individual’s contact or declining to provide a service at all it should seek appropriate advice.

Considering the impact of restrictions on others

In some cases, restricting an individual’s contact with an organisation may have an adverse impact on others. For example, if a family member of someone in residential care has been told they can no longer enter the care home, this would have an adverse impact on the resident and potentially engage their human rights.

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.

This could include:

• Requiring an individual subject to restrictions to be accompanied by another person (e.g. family member or social worker) when visiting.
• Putting in place alternative visiting arrangements, such as meeting outdoors or at another venue, so long as this is suitable for the person being visited.
• Facilitating video calls where there is a risk to staff or others in allowing a person to be physically present in the building.