The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We have investigated the Council’s ongoing application of its Unreasonable Complainant Behaviour policy. We found no fault with the Council actions. We found no evidence of fault in the ongoing application of the policy, nor in the Council’s decision to cease investigating Mrs X’s complaint and any future corporate complaints. The Council has followed its procedures appropriately throughout and will continue to review the application of the policy every six months.
What happened I have included a summary of some of the key events in this complaint. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that took place.
Corporate complaints from January 2023 In June 2023, Mrs X made Corporate Complaint 1 to the Council. The Council issued a Stage 1 response in July 2023. In August 2023, the Council issued a Stage 2 Report, and a Stage 2 Adjudication letter.
In November 2023, Mrs X made Corporate Complaint 2 to the Council. The Council issued a Stage 1 response in December 2023.
In January 2024, Mrs X made Corporate Complaint 3 to the Council. The Council issued a Stage 1 response in February 2024. Later in February 2024, the Council issued a Stage 2 Report, and a Stage 2 Adjudication Letter.
In February 2024, Mrs X made Corporate Complaint 4 to the Ombudsman and we asked the Council to investigate as the complaint was premature. The Council issued a Stage 1 response later in February 2024.
In January 2024, Mrs X made Corporate Complaint 5 to the Council. The Council issued a Stage 1 response in February 2024. Mrs X requested the complaint be considered at Stage 2; however the Council ceased their investigation in April 2024, and informed Mrs X it would stop considering any further corporate complaints.
Statutory complaints from January 2023 Mrs X had an ongoing statutory complaint, Statutory Complaint 1, at the time of January 2023.
In August 2023, Mrs X requested a Stage 3 Panel. The Stage 3 Panel was held In October 2023, and the Stage 3 Panel letter sent some days later. Later in October 2023, the Council issued its Stage 3 Adjudication Letter.
Council reviews of the policy applied to Mrs X In April 2023, the Council again reviewed its application of the policy, sending Mrs X a copy. In this review, the Council confirmed its decision to extend the application of the policy for another six months. The Council outlined the following concerns in the review letter: Mrs X’s ongoing repetitive complaints regarding the application of the policy, despite the matter being reviewed by the Ombudsman, The use of these complaints to obstruct the Council’s ability to focus on substantive matters.
Mrs X’s failure to adhere to instructions regarding communication, including her continued direct correspondence with staff members despite requests to refrain from doing so.
Targeting specific staff members in an attempt to discredit their professional integrity.
Additionally, the Council provided Mrs X with a copy of the updated policy, which was revised in December 2022.
The Council also reminded Mrs X that her contact with the Council and Brighter Futures for Children (BFfC) should be limited to specific email addresses. The Council said any complaints deemed unreasonable or already answered would be read but not necessarily responded to. A further review of the policy’s application was scheduled for October 2023.
In October 2023, the Council again reviewed its application of the policy, sending Mrs X a copy. The review found continued non-compliance with the policy, and as a result, the Council decided to extend the policy’s application for another six months. The Council outlined their concerns in the review letter, including similar concerns from the review in April 2023, and similar instructions for communication and expectations going forward. A further review was scheduled for April 2024.
In April 2024, the Council says that whilst communicating with Mrs X through email to organise and meet to discuss Corporate Complaint 5, staff involved found communications to be offensive. The Council carried out a Stress Risk Assessment to consider the impact on staff. The Council informed Mrs X that it would review her communication with the BFfC and Council, and that it had applied section 11.5 of its policy, “to refuse all contact with the complainant and cease any investigation into his or her case”. The Council confirmed it had ceased its investigation of Corporate Complaint 5.
In August 2024, the Council again reviewed its application of the policy, sending Mrs X a copy. Following the Stress Risk Assessment, the Council determined that Mrs X’s actions had caused stress to staff and further disrupted its service. The Council said Mrs X had ignored previous instructions regarding direct email contact with staff, made unreasonable demands, and engaged in vexatious behaviours, including recording a meeting without consent. As a result, the Council decided to extend the application of the policy for another six months, with a further review scheduled for February 2025.
The Council clarified that it would continue responding to statutory complaints, Freedom of Information requests, and data subject access requests. However, it would cease responding to new corporate complaints. Mrs X was reminded to use specific email addresses for communication, and emails sent outside these addresses would not receive a response. The Council also said that unreasonable or repetitive communications would not be acknowledged.
Analysis My analysis will first look at Mrs X’s concerns about the Council’s policy, which she says is unfair, and prevents her from raising concerns about her children’s welfare. I will then consider how the policy was applied and reviewed throughout this complaint, to determine whether the Council followed its own procedures consistently during its interactions with Mrs X. Finally, I will consider the Council’s decision to cease investigating Corporate Complaint 5, and any subsequent corporate complaints, to determine whether this action was taken in accordance with the policy’s guidelines.
Policy fairness and effectiveness Mrs X has raised concerns about the fairness of the policy, stating it wrongly limits her ability to advocate for her children.
Upon reviewing the policy, I find it is designed to strike a balance between protecting Council staff from unacceptable behaviour and ensuring access to services is maintained. It defines what constitutes unreasonable behaviour, along with clear examples, and provides a graduated, reviewable approach to managing such behaviour when it occurs. This is in keeping with the principles published by the Ombudsman.
The policy includes safeguards such as written warnings when the policy is applied, time-limited restrictions, and the right to challenge decisions. The policy allows the Council to place restrictions on a complainant’s contact in certain circumstances. Where this happens, it will conduct regular reviews to see if the measures remain proportionate and necessary.
The policy does not prevent individuals from raising safeguarding concerns or submitting statutory complaints and information requests. However, it does limit the ability to pursue complaints through the Council’s corporate complaints process during the period it applies. This inevitably narrows the routes available to raise certain concerns.
While Councils must follow specific legal requirements for certain complaint types, such as those under the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure, these requirements do not apply to complaints considered under the corporate complaints’ procedure. The decision to restrict access to that process, provided it is made in line with policy and preserves access to statutory routes, is therefore a matter for the Council’s judgment.
I have found no evidence to suggest that the policy is unfair. The Council is entitled to restrict individual’s contact when their behaviour becomes excessively persistent or unreasonable. The policy it followed is objective, and clear, and is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on managing unreasonable behaviour. I find no fault.
The Council’s ongoing application of its policy Since January 2023, the Council has carried out regular reviews of its decision to apply contact restrictions under its policy. Reviews took place in April and October 2023, followed by further assessments in April and August 2024, including one prompted by a staff Stress Risk Assessment. After each review, the Council wrote to Mrs X, confirming its decision to maintain the restrictions, explaining the reasons, and setting out the date for the next review.
The Council’s letters consistently referred to ongoing concerns, including repetitive communication about resolved complaints, failure to follow communication instructions, and communications perceived as personally critical of staff. These factors were cited as justification for continuing or escalating the restrictions.
It is for the Council to determine, in line with its policy, when behaviour reaches the threshold of being unreasonable. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the Council applied its policy correctly and followed a fair process in reaching its decisions.
Based on the evidence, the Council has complied with its policy. It has conducted timely reviews, communicated outcomes clearly, and documented its reasons for maintaining restrictions. There is no indication that the Council acted outside the scope of its procedures or failed to consider relevant information.
Mrs X may not agree with the Council’s conclusions, but disagreement alone does not constitute fault. Provided the Council followed a proper decision-making process and applied its policy consistently, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of its decision.
On this basis, I am satisfied the Council applied and reviewed its policy in accordance with its procedures. I have not found fault in how it managed its ongoing contact with Mrs X.
The Council’s handling of Mrs X’s complaints Between January 2023 and early 2024, the Council processed a number of corporate complaints from Mrs X in line with its published complaints procedure. This included providing Stage 1 responses and, where appropriate, progressing matters to Stage 2 with investigation reports and adjudication letters. The Council also completed the statutory complaints process for Statutory Complaint 1, including holding a Stage 3 panel.
In relation to Corporate Complaint 5, the Council initially issued a Stage 1 response in February 2024 before decided to cease its investigation at Stage 2 in April 2024 after assessing Mrs X’s communications as offensive towards staff.
This decision was made under section 11.5 of its policy, which allows the Council to refuse further contact or cease an investigation where a complainant’s behaviour is deemed to have become unacceptable. The Council supported this decision with a Stress Risk Assessment and informed Mrs X of the outcome, including the basis for the decision and its intended duration. This demonstrates that the Council did not act arbitrarily but exercised a specific provision in its policy in response to staff welfare concerns, supported by documented evidence.
The decision not to progress Complaint 5 further was proportionate within the context of repeated, escalating contact and the Council’s efforts to manage it through less restrictive means, such as communication limits and designated contact points over a sustained period. While it is a significant step to stop a complaint mid-process, the Council’s policy provides for this in exceptional cases, and the Council took steps to explain why the threshold had been met in this case. On this basis, I have found no fault in the decision to cease investigating Corporate Complaint 5.
Following a further review in August 2024, the Council decided it would no longer accept any new corporate complaints from Mrs X. This marked a broader restriction than the earlier case-specific decision. However, the Council’s justification was again grounded in its policy: it referred to continued breaches of communication conditions, further stress to staff, and behaviour assessed as vexatious, including the unauthorised recording of a meeting.
The Council confirmed this restriction would not affect Mrs X’s statutory rights, including access to freedom of information, subject access requests, or statutory complaint routes. While these channels remain available, it is acknowledged that the closure of the corporate complaints process limits her ability to raise certain matters that fall outside statutory schemes. This represents a restriction on how she can pursue concerns, though it does not remove her ability to use the alternative statutory routes the Council has preserved.
Mrs X’s advocate raised concerns that while statutory children’s complaints processes may remain open in theory, in practice the policy has been applied to prevent the Council from considering several recent complaints which she considers involved statutory breaches. In her view, these were statutory complaints and should therefore have been accepted by the Council despite the policy.
The complaints referred to concerned matters such as the Council’s discharge of its duties under section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (EHCP provision) and the administration of personal budgets. While these involve statutory education duties, they are not statutory children’s social care complaints within the scope of the Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006. The Council was therefore correct to treat them as corporate complaints, to which the policy could be applied.
The Ombudsman’s role is not to question the merits of the Council’s decision, but to consider whether it followed a fair and reasonable process. In this case, the Council applied clear provisions within its policy, supported its decisions with evidence, and provided Mrs X with written explanations. While the restriction on new corporate complaints is significant, it was made following progressive measures and formal reviews over more than a year. In the circumstances, I am satisfied the Council acted in accordance with its policy and that the decision was proportionate. On this point, I have not found fault.
Decision We have concluded our investigation with a finding of no fault. We found no evidence of fault in the ongoing application of the policy, nor in the Council’s decision to cease investigating Mrs X’s complaint and any future corporate complaints. The Council has followed its procedures appropriately throughout and will continue to review the application of the policy every six months.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman