Definitions

Complainant Conduct ‐ Defining Unacceptable Actions

People may act out of character in times of trouble or distress. There may have been upsetting or distressing circumstances leading up to a complaint being submitted to the Authority. The Authority will not view forceful or determined behaviour as unacceptable. However, the actions of complainants who are demanding or persistent may place unreasonable excessive demands on the Authority. It is these actions that are considered unacceptable and they have been grouped under five broad headings:

Unacceptable Behaviours

The Authority expect their Staff to be treated with courtesy and respect. Behaviour which may cause them to feel distressed, threatened or abused is unacceptable. The Authority understands the difference between anger and aggression. The anger felt by many complainers involves the subject matter of their complaint. However it is not acceptable when anger escalates into aggression towards Authority Staff.

There are a range of behaviours which is considered to be unacceptable and which, if they occur, will be proactively and robustly managed by Authority Staff.

Examples of which include:

• Derogatory and abusive remarks whether verbally or in writing
• Calculated rudeness and swearing
• Inflammatory statements
• Malicious, manipulative or unsubstantiated allegations
• Attempts to discuss the private lives of Authority Staff or contact them off duty
• Harassing or stalking behaviours, including through social media
• Threatening to attend at Authority premises or refusing to leave the premises when requested
• Physical violence

Unreasonable Demands

The Authority consider demands to be unacceptable if they significantly impact on the functionality of Authority Staff and the Organisation. Such demands often relate to the amount of information individuals seek, the nature and scale of the service expected and the number of approaches made. What amounts to unreasonable demands will depend on the circumstances surrounding the behaviour and gravity of the issues raised.

Examples include:

• Demanding responses within an unreasonable timescale
• Demanding contact with a particular Authority Staff member
• Demands about how the Authority deal with a complaint
• Demands to respond to a trivial matter or deal with issues not within the remit of the complaint
• Demands complaints which are already dealt with are reviewed again
• Demands for unrealistic outcomes
• Demanding a review of our decisions

Unacceptable Persistence

It is recognised some individuals will not or cannot accept that the Authority is unable to assist them further or provide a level of service other than already provided. Individuals may persist in disagreeing with the action or decision taken in relation to their complaint and persistently contact the Authority about the same issue.

It can occur in the short term or over the life-span of complaint investigation, for example when an individual makes repeated telephone calls or inundates the Authority with unnecessary and irrelevant written correspondence.

It is considered unacceptable when an inordinate amount of time is spent speaking to the individual on the telephone, or responding to emails or written correspondence to the extent it impacts significantly on the ability to deal with other individuals.

Examples include:

• Persistent refusal to accept a final outcome in relation to a complaint
• Continuing to pursue a complaint without presenting any new or relevant information
• Repeatedly changing the substance of an issue or raising unrelated concerns
• Unduly frequent or excessively long telephone calls or written correspondence
• Attempting to contact different Authority Staff in the organisation in the hope of a different outcome
• Repeatedly questioning the competency or integrity of the Authority and its Staff

Unreasonable Lack of Cooperation

Individuals with complaints have the right to pursue their concerns through a range of means. They also have the right to complain more than once about the organisation if subsequent incidents occur.

Along with these rights comes responsibility for the individuals to cooperate in the complaint and investigation process to allow enquiries to progress as effectively and efficiently as practicable.

An individual’s lack of cooperation becomes unacceptable when it prevents the Authority from pursuing a legitimate aim or implementing a legitimate decision.

Examples include:

• Repeatedly failing to define a complaint
• Failing to reply to repeated requests for information
• Providing excessive, disorganised or irrelevant information
• Withholding information which is material to the enquiry
• Providing misinformation or acting dishonestly
• Failure to meet with the investigating officer without good reason
• Failure or refusal to answer or return telephone calls without good reason
• Failure to reply to written correspondence without good reason
• Behaving in an abusive or offensive manner

The enquiry officer will make all reasonable efforts to secure a complainer’s
cooperation. If they are satisfied the investigation cannot proceed without the
complainer’s further cooperation, consideration may be given to abandoning the complaint investigation (within 14 days). The decision to abandon a complaint should be communicated to the complainer in writing.

Unreasonable Arguments

The Authority can only investigate and respond to competent complaints for which there is a practical purpose in pursuing. It is expected that individuals provide a reasonable argument and evidence for their complaint.

An individual’s argument may be deemed unreasonable if it is clearly groundless or if it is based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the law, regulations or policies of the Authority.

Examples include:

• Making spurious allegations with little or no supporting evidence
• Pursuing trivial matters
• Raising incomprehensible complaints
• Insisting an erroneous interpretation of the facts or law is correct
• Refusing to accept personal responsibility or blaming others for their misfortune
• Alleging corruption or conspiracy theories on the part of the Authority or partner agencies