The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council reviewed restrictions it placed on the complainants contact. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it dealt with the matter. There is also insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010. Complaints about data protection should be raised with the Information Commissioner.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will call Mrs X, complains about how the Council reviewed restrictions that it placed on her contact under its unreasonable persistent complainants policy. Mrs X also says the Council is in breach of the Equality Act 2010 as it has not made reasonable adjustments for her disability or provided her with sufficient support. Mrs X also says the Council have breached data protection rules in how it handled her personal information and how it manages the role of Data Protection Officer.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In October 2021, the Council made the decision to implement its unreasonable persistent complainant policy and restrict Mrs X’ contact. It told Mrs X that it would carry out a review of its decision in six months. The Ombudsman has previously considered a complaint about the implementation of its policy and therefore I will not consider this matter again further.
Mrs X complains about how the Council carried out its six-month review of the restrictions. She says the Council delayed carrying out its review, the review was not carried out by the appropriate people and that the Council’s decision to continue with restrictions was not evidence based.
I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council carried out a review of its contact restrictions. Whilst the Council did incorrectly advise Mrs X that the review would be carried out in March, it apologised for this mistake and the review was carried out in April, six-months after the restrictions were implemented. Records show that the relevant council staff met to discuss the case and considered relevant information about Mrs X’s contact with the Council since the restrictions were implemented. It then wrote to Mrs X informing her of the outcome and advising her of her right to a review. I am satisfied that the Council carried out its review in accordance with its policy and therefore there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it dealt with the matter.
Mrs X also complains that the Council has failed to implement reasonable adjustments and failed to provide her with suitable support, in breach of the Equality Act 2010. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
In this case the evidence shows that the Council were aware that Mrs X was neurodivergent and agreed to changes in how it communicates with her. It has also allowed Mrs X to bring someone to meetings to support her and has recently sent Mrs X details of advocacy services in the area, and asked her to contact it if she needs further support in arranging an advocate. Having considered this point I am satisfied that the Council has taken account of its duties under the Equality Act 2010 in its communications with Mrs X, and it is therefore unlikely we would find fault.
Finally, Mrs X complains that the Council has breached data protection rules in how it has dealt with her personal information and how it has managed the role of Data Protection Officer. I will not investigate this matter because it is reasonable for Mrs X to raise this with the Information Commissioner, who is better placed to deal with complaints about breaches of data protection.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with its review and how it considered its duties under the Equality Act. Matters relating to data protection are better considered by the Information Commissioner.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman