The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council imposing restrictions on his contacts with it. This is because we have no powers to investigate complaints from councillors about matters relating to their role as a councillor.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, is an elected town councillor. Mr X complained the Council had unreasonably imposed restrictions on the way he can contact the District Council.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We investigate complaints from members of the public or their authorised representatives. This means we cannot accept complaints from councillors complaining about something relating to their position as a councillor. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A, as amended) We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In correspondence with Mr X the Council said why it had decided to treat Mr X as vexatious. It allocated Mr X a single point of contact. The Council told Mr X how long the restriction would last and considered his appeal against the decision. It has said Mr X will receive a monthly response to his correspondence.
The decision at the heart of this complaint follows Mr X’s repeated contact with the Council in his role as a town councillor. The restriction detailed in paragraph 3 therefore applies to Mr X’s complaint. It is outside our jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate.
But even if the Council had taken the decision to limit Mr X’s contact due to his actions as a member of the public, we would not start an investigation. This is because the Council can decide not to reply to frequent and repetitious contact. It can limit the way members of the public can contact it.
Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but the Council has explained it to Mr X and considered his appeal. The Council’s decision is not one which denies Mr X, as a member of the public, access to services he might need. The Council has instead decided to manage what it considers to be unreasonably persistent contact. The Council’s decision has not caused Mr X a significant personal injustice warranting an investigation.
Final decision
We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have no powers to investigate complaints from councillors about matters relating to their role as a councillor.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman