The Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) brought a new policy to their Audit and Governance committee on 16 January, entitled ‘Managing Unreasonable Behaviour from Members of the Public Policy’. It can be found on page 112 of the agenda. The nine page body of work contains 2,475 words and a two page list of examples of unreasonable behaviour. In contrast their whistleblowing policy has 726 words; complaints sits at 484 words, and their equality and diversity policy has just 207 words.
Overkill
I won’t list all 23 examples which end in, and I quote, ‘The above list is not exhaustive and merely explanatory of examples of unreasonable behaviour from members of the public.’ but I will provide the top five to allow you to understand the tone of the document:
- Refusing to specify the complaint or service request, despite offers of assistance with this from the Authority’s staff.
- Making an unreasonable number of contacts with us, by any means, in relation to a specific service request, complaint or complaints.
- Refusing to accept that issues are not within the remit of a complaints procedure or a service request despite having been provided with information about the procedure’s scope.
- Covertly recording meetings and conversations without the prior knowledge and consent of the other persons involved.
- Making unnecessarily excessive demands on the time and resources of staff whilst a complaint is being looked into by, for example, excessive telephoning or sending emails to numerous Authority staff, writing lengthy, complex letters every few days and expecting immediate responses.
Staff Protection
Whilst no reasonable person would begrudge a governmental body a policy to protect its staff from unreasonable behaviour, one does wonder why this particular policy uses Freedom of Information (FOI) law as a backdrop to its implementation. Especially considering the Combined Authority doesn’t actually have its own Freedom of Information Policy.
Vexatious Request
The policy goes on to define what a vexatious request is. Which is what I’d like to highlight in particular:
“We define a vexatious request as: “A request that is likely to cause distress, disruption or irritation, without any proper or justified cause”.”
Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states:
Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.
(2)Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the making of the current request.
The Information Commissioner’s Office interprets section 1(1) of the law as:
“The Act allows you to refuse a request if it is vexatious i.e. where the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustifiable level of distress, disruption or irritation.”
The key words here are disproportionate and unjustifiable. The TVCA apparently removed them.
Pushback
Committee members were asked to approve the policy. Councillor Melanie Morley and Councillor Nicky Walker both raised concerns. Councillor Morley was concerned about the use of the word vexatious and stated, “I guess what I’m struggling with on the policy you copy and pasted from the smallest local authority in the Tees Valley” referring to Hartlepool Borough Council, she goes on to say, “Vexatious as a terminology is what is utilised in FOI requests”.
Dictionary corner
To which the council’s monitoring officer Emma Simson replies, “Yes that is correct, vexatious is in the dictionary but it is also used in FOI legislation. So, vexatious, in the Freedom of Information Act has its own definition. So, if we are dealing with a Freedom of Information request we would utilise the definition in the Freedom of Information Act 2000”.
Every day is a school day
Yes, that’s what Emma Simson said, verbatim. I’d imagine Emma had hoped to assuage Councillor Morley’s concerns with these verbal linguistics, and move on to the next case. But, Councillor Morley was having none of it, pointing out that the TVCA does not have its own Freedom of Information policy. Which begs the question, why is the TVCA using Freedom of Information law in a behaviour policy when they haven’t actually written a Freedom of Information Policy of their own?
Shock and disbelief
Angela Hart, the TVCA’s Head of Performance, Risk and Assurance was seated next to Emma during the meeting and seemed baffled by this. Angela has only been in post for four months. It’s naturally taking her a while to become accustomed to how things are done around here.
Public Participation Policy déjà vu
Seasoned TVCA watchers may be forgiven that they had seen something like this before. They had, almost a year ago. Back on 1 March 2024, the STDC rushed out an amended Public Participation Policy, radically different to the previous version. The bizarre thing is that, in doing so, the STDC and the TVCA were driving a coach and horses through their own constitution. It is the TVCA, not the STDC, that is responsible for amending policies.
What a hangover
Why did they go to such lengths on a Saturday morning? Well, the previous day, members of the public had submitted 51 questions to the South Tees Development Corporation (STDC) board meeting, following on from the recent publication of the independent Tees Valley Review.
Shining a light into a dark place
The TVCA was taken aback by the sudden scrutiny. It had survived the previous seven years with virtually none. Few questions were ever submitted to meetings. Few members of the public, and on many occasions none, attended TVCA and STDC committee and board meetings. But, now a group of concerned Teesside citizens were taking an interest.
Panic stations
Ben Houchen and the statutory officers seemed suddenly spooked and draconian action immediately followed. The Public Participation Policy was hastily rewritten. Instead of providing 48 hours notice to ask questions the required notice suddenly became three clear working days. Questions could only be asked if they related to agenda items. The latter was an especially undemocratic move. As the TVCA determines the agenda, they can avoid questions by simply keeping subjects that would pertain to them off the agenda. It is also worth noting that none of the TVCA/STDC committee and board agendas have a section for ‘All Other Business’ or verbal questions from the public. This is almost unheard of from a public body.
An uncanny parallel
So, the parallels between the Public Participation Policy of March 2024 and the Unreasonable Behaviour Policy of January 2025, in both cases, draw a draconian policy that has been introduced as an over-reaction to the activities of a group of concerned Teesside citizens. The TVCA staffers may be forgetting that they are indeed civil servants but are instead acting more like civil dictators. The difference now is that there is actually somewhat more scrutiny from members of the committees after the local elections back in May. So, potentially, the dictatorship will be no more. Time will tell.
1984
Councillor Nicky Walker also raised concerns, asking that council officers liaise with Councillor Morley on the new policy. She went on to say, “The issue that I have is in the wording”, and “On the examples of unreasonable behaviours of members of the public, on page 117, ‘the matters of the complaint are politically motivated’, I accept and understand all the other examples but this one sounds like it was possibly in relation to one incident that happened in the local authority.” She then states the full example listed below:
The matter of complaint is politically motivated and where press and other publicity has been attracted to the matter of complaint before the same have been reported to the Authority’s Monitoring Officer and which the Monitoring Officer reasonably believes is not in the public interest to warrant an investigation. It will also be a consideration as to whether independent evidence is likely to be obtained and the nature of seriousness of complaint which may not warrant any further action being taken.
She declares “It just sounds a bit Orwellian to me.” Yes, one could argue that the TVCA is acting as prosecution, counsel, judge and jury.
The Vote
The chair, Councillor Mandy Porter, prepared for the vote. Mandy was in an unusual position. She usually keeps tight control of this committee, trying to approve and note agenda items with a minimum of fuss. But, Agenda Item number 9, on 16 January 2025, was going to be different. A vote was moved on Annexes 2 and 3, to approve the Complaints Policy in both short and full forms. This is the routine that Mandy Porter is used to.
A shock to the system
Then came the vote on Annex 4, to approve the ‘Managing Unreasonable Behaviour from Members of the Public Policy’. To the apparent dismay of Emma Simson, the committee voted Annex 4 down. The policy would go back for review, to be brought back to the next meeting of the committee in April. Councillor Morley volunteered her services to provide legal assistance in drafting a revised policy. Watch this space.
Thank you to Ray Casey for contributing to this article
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
