The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to restrict its contact with a third party in line with its unreasonable customer policy. No restrictions have been placed on the complainant therefore the Council’s actions have not caused the complainant significant injustice.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council has decided the spokesperson for a community group is vexatious. She says this silences the community.
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 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 continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council applied its unreasonable customer policy to designate a third party, whom I shall call Mr Y, as an unreasonably persistent customer. It advised Mr Y it will only accept contact from him in certain ways so it can manage his contacts effectively.
I understand Mrs X considers she has been ‘silenced’ by the Council because of the contact restrictions it has placed on Mr Y. However, I do not agree. Mrs X is not subject to any restrictions and she is free to make a complaint to the Council should she wish to do so.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we do not consider she has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s decision to apply its unreasonable complaints policy to Mr Y.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman