Guidance for the handling of Unreasonably Persistent and Vexatious Complainants
Purpose of Guide
To define an Unreasonably and Vexatious Persistent Complainant so as to ensure fair and consistent treatment to all service users.
To put in place a process that enables staff to follow and apply action appropriately and consistently.
For the purpose of this guide "complaint/complainant" is as defined in the High Peak Borough Council complaint handling procedure booklet "Complaints about the Council."
Defining an Unreasonably Persistent and Vexatious Complainant
It is very important to distinguish between a persistent complainant and an unreasonably persistent complainant.
The majority of people who complain want a response and resolution to their complaint. If this is not forthcoming they may persist, understandably, until they receive what they seek.
An unreasonably persistent complainant however, may display all or some of the following types of behaviour:
- Applying a "scattergun" approach ie. pursuing the same complaint at the same time with numerous Officers, Councillor’s, Member of Parliament, Ombudsman, Police, solicitors etc.
- Refusing to accept the decision even after thorough investigation through the complaints handling procedure. Continuing to make contact and go over old ground.
- Changing the basis of the complaint as it progresses through Stages of the corporate procedure.
- Denying statements they have made at an earlier stage of the investigation.
- Raising large numbers of detailed but unimportant questions, and insisting they are fully answered.
- Introducing trivial or irrelevant new information as the complaint progresses, and through this hindering the investigation.
- Electronically recording meetings or telephone conversations without the prior knowledge and/or consent of the other people involved.
- Making excessive demands on officers’ time whilst they are attempting to investigate the complaint. For example writing lengthy, complex letters every few days, contacting by telephone every few days, e-mailing every few days etc.
- Expecting immediate responses outside of the guidelines of the procedure.
- Requesting the replacement of an officer investigating the complaint for no justified reason.
- Submitting repeat complaints about essentially the same matter that has already been investigated, or supplying an addition/variation to the initial complaint and then insisting that it is a new complaint.
- Refusing to supply sufficient information to support the allegations made.
- Refusing to accept anything other than the guidelines laid down within the procedure when there is good reason for this, and an explanation and notification as to why something may take longer to investigate has been given.
- Refusing to co-operate with the complaints procedure.
- Making statements that are patently false or without any evidential foundation.
This list is not exhaustive but gives a clear indication as to the type of behaviour that is considered unreasonable and/or persistent.
Aggressive/Abusive/Threatening Behaviour
Any form of aggressive/abusive behaviour toward an Officer of the Council would be dealt with separately through the existing procedures designed to protect the wellbeing of staff, and be documented for the future safe management of service delivery.
Considerations prior to defining a complainant as vexatious or unreasonably persistent
- Ensure that the Corporate Complaints procedure has been correctly implemented, so far as possible, and that no material element of a complaint has been overlooked or inadequately addressed. This needs to cover such things as:
- Decisions reached on the complaint itself are correct and justifiable
- Communications have been regular and sufficient
- If a complaint is ongoing, be certain that it is following correct route and a meeting between the complainant and an officer of appropriate seniority has been offered.
- If the complainant has special needs then these have these been catered for.
- A warning has been issued that if complainant’s actions continue then the authority may consider formally treating them as unreasonably persistent or vexatious and issuing notification to this effect.
- Identify the stage at which a complainant has become unreasonably persistent or vexatious and record evidence to support this.
Should an officer be unsure of whether behaviour is such as to be classified as Unreasonably Persistent and Vexatious they should consult with the Corporate Customer Liaison Advisor in order to ensure the policy is applied consistently.
Implementing the procedure
Once it has been agreed that a complainant is considered unreasonably persistent/vexatious there are several options for action.
These need to be appropriate and proportionate to the nature and frequency of the complainant’s contact with the authority.
One or more of the following options may be implemented, at which point the complainant must be notified in writing with the reasons why they have been classified as unreasonably persistent/vexatious, and why and for what period the action applied is being taken.
- Placing time limits on telephone conversations and/or personal contact.
- Restriction of contact for example one phone call per week at a designated time.
- Limiting the complainant to one form of contact ie. letter, telephone, e-mail and/or with one named member of staff.
- Requiring any contact to take place in the presence of a witness.
- Refusal to accept further complaints about the same matter.
- Acknowledgement only of letters, faxes, e-mails.
- Informing the complainant that future correspondence will be placed on file but not responded to in any way.
Notifying the complainant
Notification to the complainant that they are considered to be unreasonably persistent/vexatious should be in writing and signed by the relevant Head of Service.
The notification should include the following:
- The decision has been taken to classify them as unreasonably persistent.
- Why they have been classified as such.
- What this means for his/her contact with the authority.
- Whether other/future complaints that may arise will be considered.
- How long the restrictions will remain in place.
- How they can have the decision reviewed, by whom and when.
Notifying Councillors
Where a complainant is deemed to be vexatious or unreasonably persistent then Councillors will be advised of this as appropriate. This will include the complainant's ward councillors, where a resident of the district, and other members as relevant to the complaint e.g. members who may have been involved in the complaint.
Consideration of a request to review the notification
If, following a complainant being notified that they are considered to be unreasonably persistent/vexatious, a request is received for a review of the decision then this will be undertaken by an officer senior to the person who made the original decision, and the findings of the review communicated to the complaint within 20 working days of the request being received.
Once the review is complete the complainant will be notified in writing of the outcome and, if restrictions are to continue to be applied, what they are and when they will next be reviewed.
Monitoring the policy and notifications issued
Full details of any decision to classify a complainant as unreasonably persistent/vexatious must be advised to the Corporate Customer Liaison Officer prior to issue.
Any request for review should be directed to the Corporate Customer Liaison Officer upon receipt.
It will be their responsibility to:
- Record and monitor notifications issued.
- Record any appeal received against a decision to classify a complainant as unreasonably persistent/vexatious.
- If the Corporate Customer Liaison Officer considers the unreasonably persistent/vexatious notification to have been wrongly issued or inappropriately applied they will advise the Chief Executive of this, who will then consider whether to exercise their power to revoke the notification.
- An appeal against any decision to classify a complainant as unreasonably persistent/vexatious may be made to the Chief Executive who will appoint an appropriate officer, previously unconnected with the case, to review the decision and advise on whether the decision should stand.
