URL: https://democracy.arun.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1718

Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content:   In the absence of the Complaints Manager, the Assistant Director of Governance, People & Performance presented a new Managing Unreasonable Behaviour Policy, which combined and updated the former Customer of Concern Protocol (2019) and the Unreasonable Behaviour Policy (2023). This work followed a wider review of councillor and staff safety measures, including updates to guidance, training, and meeting procedures, alongside the readoption of the Feedback and Complaints Policy.   The updated policy responded to increasing instances of unreasonable, aggressive, or threatening behaviour from a small minority of customers across calls, emails, and face?to?face interactions, particularly affecting high contact services such as Customer Services, Housing, and Information Management.   The combined policy offered a clearer, more transparent framework for managing such behaviour, it set out clear expectations of acceptable conduct and strengthened the Council’s ability to take swift action to protect staff.   In presenting the policy, the Assistant Director of Governance, People & Performance confirmed his thanks to the Complaints Manager for her work in merging and updating the two documents.    The recommendation in the report was then proposed by Councillor Walsh and seconded by Councillor Lawrence.   Members were invited to debate the updated Managing Unreasonable Behaviour Policy. One member noted that the policy appeared focused on office based staff, raising concerns about how it would apply to outdoor workers and contractors such as refuse collectors, who might experience harassment but be unable to identify perpetrators. The Assistant Director of Governance, People & Performance confirmed that the policy applied to all staff and contractors and was based on managing behaviour and risk, regardless of location.   A member then expressed support for the policy’s intentions but could not support it in its current form. They highlighted past Ombudsman findings where the Council had wrongly used similar policies to shut down legitimate complaints. They were concerned that examples listed in the new policy, such as sending multiple emails, repeating issues, or refusing decisions, could unfairly impact residents who communicated differently, including those who were neurodiverse or not confident with technology. They asked for the policy wording to be reconsidered.   Another member responded that these concerns were overstated. They argued the examples were only indicators, not automatic triggers, and that increasing unacceptable behaviour towards staff needed to be addressed. They trusted officers and members to apply the policy appropriately. A further member said they supported the policy but felt unsure about including specific examples, as unreasonable behaviour could depend on how it was experienced by the recipient.   Others commented that examples should remain, as they provided helpful illustrations, and that the key issue was correct implementation rather than wording. A question was raised about how decisions to classify a customer as vexatious were scrutinised, and how the policy ensured fairness and oversight rather than relying on the judgement of a single officer.   In response, the Assistant Director of Governance, People & Performance explained that the new policy required senior level decisions and replaced a cumbersome previous system. There would be a right of appeal reviewed by a more senior officer, with the Ombudsman providing external oversight. He stated that the examples were based on those recognised by the Ombudsmen as legitimate signs of unreasonable behaviour and that officers would continue to apply professional judgement.   A final point was made regarding the Equality Impact Assessment noting that the policy was assessed as having a medium impact on people with disabilities. It was felt that this highlighted that the assessment itself acknowledged customers with disabilities may be more likely to display behaviours that could lead to them being added to the Customer Concern Register, which echoed some of the concerns raised earlier in the debate. That Councillor shared a recent example from the flooding response that aligned with his concerns. The member stressed that without knowing someone’s disability or communication barriers, there was a real risk of misinterpreting their behaviour as unreasonable. They also expressed concern about the policy’s reference to ending conversations early, as this might prevent officers from identifying underlying disabilities. Because of these issues, they felt that they could not support the policy in its current form.   In response, the Assistant Director of Governance, People & Performance confirmed that the EIA appropriately identified areas of potential disproportionate impact. He stressed that the policy required officers to consider individual circumstances and make reasonable adjustments, supported by increasing staff awareness through neurodiversity and disability training. He highlighted that flexibility was essential and that officers must understand the reasons behind high contact levels and choose appropriate, tailored responses. Some restrictions might not be suitable for certain customers, and alternatives may be needed. He concluded that although the policy acknowledged potential impacts, it contained clear obligations to ensure reasonable adjustments were made to avoid unfair outcomes.   The Chair closed the debate by emphasising that the policy aimed to ensure fair service delivery and committed the Council to proportional responses and reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. He acknowledged the concerns raised about complaint handling and noted the role of the Ombudsman in ensuring accountability, highlighting that the Council must continue improving in this area.   The Committee             RESOLVED   That the Managing Unreasonable Customers Behaviour Policy be approved.

Date of Decision: March 12, 2026