The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We have upheld this complaint about how the Council managed restrictions placed upon the complainants social media account. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a proportionate remedy any injustice caused to the complainant.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to restrict him from viewing and commenting the Council’s social media posts. Mr X says the restriction means he is unable to see information posted by the Council, preventing him from taking part in local democracy. He also says the Council’s actions have caused him distress and are a breach of his right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA),
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 March 2022, Mr X commented on three posts made by the Council on its social media page. The Council reviewed the post and considered its contents to be potentially libellous and therefore could pose a legal risk to the Council. It therefore made the decision to restrict Mr X from viewing and commenting on its social media posts.
The Council has since introduced an updated social media policy which covers restrictions on its social media platforms. It says that the length of any block or ban will be determined by the Communications Team.
Mr X said the Council’s actions breached his right to freedom of expression under the HRA. But the Ombudsman has no remit to decide if someone’s rights under the Act have been breached. Only the courts can decide about that matter.
We can consider if the Council has had due regard to the HRA in reaching its decision. I note the Council considered Mr X’s allegation it had breached the HRA but concluded it was proportionate to restrict Mr X’s rights in this instance due to his behaviour and the legal risk it posed to the Council. In the circumstances I do not see we would have grounds to find fault with the Council on the basis it did not have regard to the HRA in Mr X’s case.
Whilst there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to block Mr X from its social media platform, if we investigated this complain it is likely we would find fault with the Council for not telling Mr X how long the ban would last for, suggesting the ban would be indefinite. This caused Mr X some uncertainty about when the block would end. When restricting the publics communications, we would expect councils to consider how long any restrictions would be in place and when they would be reviewed.
It is also likely that we would find further fault with the wording of the Council’s new policy. Whilst it does say that the length of time any ban or block would last would be considered by the Communications Team, it does not indicate about the maximum amount of time a ban or block, giving the impression a ban may be indefinite.
Agreed actions
To its credit, the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint. It has amended its social media policy to say that any restriction will be reviewed after six months. It has also agreed to implement this policy with regards to the restriction it placed upon Mr X. It will therefore carry out a review at the end of September. I consider these actions provide a proportionate remedy to any injustice caused to Mr X.
Final decision
We have upheld this complaint because it is likely an investigation would find fault. The Council has however agreed to a proportionate remedy for the injustice cause to Mr X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman