The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to place the complainant on its Restricted Persons Register. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mr P, says the Council placed him on its Restricted Persons Register (RPR) without explaining why or advising him how to appeal.
He says the Council has defamed him.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 Mr P and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council wrote to Mr P advising the volume of emails from him were having an adverse impact of the ability of officers to provide support to other residents. Because of this it placed him on the RPR for one years. It confirmed: Any communication must be in writing by post or hand delivered.
It will not respond to emails from Mr P which it will delete.
Post will be responded to by appropriate staff.
It will not respond to issues already responded to.
It also advised Mr P could write and advise of any reasons why he should not be on the RPR.
Following further correspondence, the Council confirmed it has considered Mr P’s appeal against inclusion on the RPR. It confirmed there is no requirement for in-person hearings. However, it has considered the reasons Mr P has given for being removed from the RPR. It has decided he will remain on the RPR for the year because of the volume of (often repetitive) emails he has sent.
So, the Council has placed Mr P on the RPR and considered his appeal. This is in line with its ‘Unreasonable or Unreasonably Persistent Complainants policy’
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr P’s complaint. We do not comment on judgements councils make unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. In this case the Council followed its Unreasonable or Unreasonably Persistent Complainants policy. It properly communicated its decision to Mr P. He submitted a review request against the decision, which was also properly considered and responded to, although was unsuccessful.
Whether Mr P has been defamed is a legal matter which the courts, and not the Ombudsman, are best placed to determine.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman