How many parish councils have implemented a Vexatious Policy

Question

My local parish council have implemented a Vexatious Policy instigated by the locum clerk, she doesn't like to be questioned especially when she is proved wrong, it seems very heavy handed to me, I was wondering if this is the norm, I personally don't think it's very good as it puts a wall between the council and it's parishioners

Answer 1

Our policy is call unreasonable complainant behaviour

Answer 2

My experience is that any council that uses the word vexatious “ is dysfunctional I’d be interested to see how the policy is worded and how it incorporates the rights contained in the Freedom of Information Act
As the Clerk is locum get yourself a better Clerk before Labour's proposed  employment regulations come in as I should imagine locus staff will count as employees

Answer 3

Agree, as a Parishioner, one can feel afraid to ask a question of the Council incase one gets accused of being vexatious.
A council I know has I believe an Unreasonable and persistent vexatious policy and a complaints policy.

Answer 4

It's reasonable to have the policy... (and would be actively encouraged by most HR Advisors etc) The question really is how its implemented and should be something used very very rarely. In the same way you try to plan for every eventuality as part of a good Emegency Plan (hoping you never need to use it). Its been misued by some and a protective shield that been said to counter that have seen instances where policy has been appopriately applied (and if honest police should have been involved far sooner)

Answer 5

Unfortunately having a "vexatious policy" encourages the misuse of such. Who defines and decides whether an enquiry made by a member of the public is "vexatious"? Is it to be defined by how many times a person poses or ask questions? You then have to decide whether the questions are asked because the answer is not forthcoming? It is something that needs very careful thought by council before waving that flag. Much better to have a robust defined path for the public to follow to question the Pc (as is their right) that cannot be manipulated by clerk or councillors who wish to cover up their own shortcomings or failures.

Comments

This was instigated by the locum clerk, the council just followed her advice, she did not like being questioned especially when I proved her wrong, she also refused a FOI request by saying that I would have to pay her £38ph, from that she introduced this policy, when I was on the PC, we had some troublesome parishioners but always dealt with it as opposed to heavy handed response, I just don't think it's necessary

---

They can't charge you for a FOI request if it would involve less than 18 hours of work. Are they saying it would take more than 18 hours? Even then they could only charge £25ph.

---

Well that’s what she said, because of the huge amount of money she is being paid, £38 ph is huge in my opinion, she then thought she could charge me the same, actually she is costing the council a fortune atm, junior doctors get less than half that, I feel that she seems to like the hassle and arguments and foolishly the council don’t think for themselves

Answer 6

I find the responses to this question rather sad.  There seems to be an almost universal condemnation of the clerk for even considering such a policy.
In my council we have a complaints policy which includes a vexatious element and the term is defined within the policy.  It was introduced when one councillor, having had personal experience of an issue with another council, suggested it.  We have not needed to use it but it's there if we do.

The councillor who suggested it had experience of an individual who would send up to 35 emails a day to the clerk who was contracted to work just 4 hours per week.  If a query wasn't responded to within minutes, there followed multiple additional items culminating in accusations of fraudulent behaviour on the part of the clerk for not responding instantly or with the information the complainant felt ought to be made available to him.    Attempts at dealing with the individual's behaviour by arranging meetings to explain and agree reasonable response times were fruitless and simply generated more frequent and often vague questions and accusations.
We treat the vexatious complaints policy as a form of insurance as it enables us to block an individual if their behaviour is such that it impacts on the health or wellbeing of our staff or councillors.

Comments

You may classify it as an insurance but it’s also putting up a wall between the council and its parishioners, I agree 35 emails is way ott but I feel in my case it was a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, basically the locum clerk didn’t like to be shown that she was wrong and took this heavy handed approach to it, no one forces anyone to be a councillor and in what one does can upset some people, that’s the name of the game but councillors have to be answerable to their parishioners and trying to ban them from attending meetings (which she couldn’t do) but then preventing them asking a question at a meeting I feel is wrong, I know there is a lot of good clerks but there’s also some really bad ones

---

35 emails a day probably would fall under vexatious behaviour.

The problem is that once a VB policy is in place it becomes all too easy to just use it anytime that someone asks a difficult question that they don't want to answer.

---

Yes I totally agree, I think it’s an absolute last resort to have to use it, until less than a year we never had one and not really ever needed it, as I said it’s a sledgehammer to crack a walnut or in this parish anyway

Answer 7

Our Parish Council has a vexatious policy in place.
Whilst I can appreciate the policy could be misused to silence legitimate questions or criticism, councillors have a basic duty under employment law to protect their employee, the clerk, from bullying or harassment. Our PC has recently lost a clerk due to the pressure she was put under from a tiny cohort of activists bombarding her with emails and requests. Her time was consumed responding to the requests and complaints. She kept quiet about the extent of the problem at the time, preferring to quietly leave and put the hassle behind her.

Answer 8

This is such a complex issue. None of my three councils has a vexatious/unreasonable behaviour policy and it is not something I would support. Delboy's Wife has made a compelling argument for having one as a last resort, which makes eminent sense. Therein lies the dilemma. To use or not to use?

For me, it's an issue of trust. There are councillors in each of my councils who I believe would use such a policy as the first weapon with which to beat their neighbours. The overriding power of "I can tell you to shut up and there's nothing you can do about it!" appeals to some. How can we ensure that the last resort remains just that?

On this forum, we've seen countless examples of such policies being used inappropriately by councils too scared to admit their mistakes or unwilling to open themselves and their decisions to public scrutiny. We see former councillors with personal grievances attacking their councils, sometimes with valid reason, sometimes not. Then we have the keyboard warriors, or rebels without a clue as I describe them. In the midst of all this, we have Clerks, male, female, young, old, experienced, new to the role. Some need protecting, others less so.

Is the answer that these policies are a key tool in the armoury of the councils that need them and those that have the maturity to use them wisely, but shouldn't be entrusted to those who lack the understanding of democracy and basic human interaction?

Comments

We haven't used it, but should have. As a small parish, we've exhausted the pool of people willing to be on the PC & if the current PC collapses, there probably won't be another. We're going to struggle to get anyone to clerk & tbh I think it would be unfair to expect anyone to take on the role unless we tackle the underlying cause of resignations.

Answer 9

Just to add another angle - I joined this site because of a case I was well aware of in the town where I live involving a serial complainer to both parishes and the borough council - a thread on this site from a few years back claimed multiple things about the way a parish had handled a complaint that were simply not true.

One issue is everyone on forums like this is quick and ready to believe the people that post about the worst behaviour of clerks especially, and councils  - and that thread was an example of that.
Unfortunately knowing a number of clerks and having experienced a few quite unpleasant individuals myself I am well aware that such a policy is a very last resort but is sometimes necessary. People do seem to sometimes have the attitude that because officers and councillors are public servants that they can treat them however they like.

Comments

I always take what people say on this forum with a pinch of salt. I don't expect to hear the full story. Often you see posters contradict themselves in further posts.

However you have to answer as though the statement was true, you can't assume that someone believes what someone is saying just because they provide an answer.

Equally i will take with a pinch of salt when a clerk says they would only use such a policy as a very last resort. That does not mean i am calling you a liar. Just because someone is asking you questions that do you not like it does not make them unpleasant.

---

It isn't just questions that the policy is for though - it's abuse and insults. As an example I had a resident accuse a local volunteer who is chair of the village hall charity of being a liar in a circulated email. No evidence, just his interpretation of a situation that he didn't like the response to. And he sends other insulting emails to other volunteers and councillors. How many times should he be allowed to do that? Should the council just let him insult people?