The Isle of Man government has launched a crackdown on vexatious complaints, correspondence and behaviour.
But one man who has persistently challenged decisions of departments says he will continue to do so despite the new policy which he believes is aimed at him.
The new policy has been issued by the Office of Human Resources on behalf of the Council of Ministers to deal with those who are ‘unreasonably persistent’ in their inquiries, submit ‘groundless, vexatious or multiple complaints’ or who exhibit unacceptable behaviour.
Persistent complainers take up a disproportionate amount of time and resources in government, it is argued, and until now there has been no standard policy for dealing with the problem.
The Examiner revealed last month that 12 out of 20 Freedom of Information requests made in the Act’s first month were submitted by just one man - Peel resident Trevor Cowin, a regular contributor to this newspaper’s letters page.
He said he wanted to make sure FoI wasn’t a ‘damp squib’ and vowed to have a ‘field day’ when the legislation was rolled out to the Department of Infrastructure.
Mr Cowin insisted his persistence has paid off. He said: ‘The policy is clearly aimed at me but I do not consider myself to be a vexatious complainant, which in law means “the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance”.
‘In the democracy which we live in all citizens have a right to challenge decisions taken by government departments and to question Ministers about their department’s functions, and I will continue to do so.
‘All complaints I’ve made against government departments have been made based on solid legal grounds and have not been frivolous or trivial and whilst I admit that I have been persistent in pursuing my inquiries such persistence has not been unreasonable.’ FoI and the voluntary code of access to government information have their own provisions relating to vexatious complaints.
But the new policy document applies to all government departments, statutory boards and authorities.
Vexatious complaints can be those that appear to be groundless, frivolous or trivial, about issues that have already been dealt with, are designed to cause disruption, annoyance or embarrassment and are intended to cause significant costs to government.
Options for action listed in the policy document include restricting or terminating altogether contacts with the department, board or office concerned, declining to register and process further complaints and even preventing access to the building occupied by the department.
There is a 28-day period to appeal against a decision to restrict contact.
A Cabinet Office spokesman said: ‘Such policies are common amongst public sector organisations in the UK and they stop the public’s resources being diverted by complaints that are clearly vexatious and unreasonable.
‘The intention is that the policy sits alongside, but is separate from, the element in Freedom of Information legislation which specifically addresses vexatious requests for information, and will cover other vexatious issues and behaviour which by their nature are unacceptable.
‘This does not affect the rights of individuals to complain if services are unsatisfactory or to make legitimate requests for information or other advice.‘
Mr Cowin cited two recent examples where he said he has been successful in challenging government.
He said: ‘In relation to the Cabinet Office, the Chief Minister consistently rebutted questions about its illegality, but then announced shortly before Christmas that the Cabinet Office was to “get legal” - the opposite of which is “illegal”.
‘In relation to the planning committee, I have been arguing for years that it has been illegal since it was first formed in 2005 and my persistence has almost paid off in that the planning committee will “get legal” when Town and Country Planning Bill becomes law.
‘Over the years I have revealed that hundreds of planning decisions made by planning officers were illegal, procedures weren’t followed, the format of planning decisions notices is and still is legally defective, and hundreds of delegations of functions were either legally defective, unlawful or both.
‘For these reasons alone I believe that my persistence has made a difference.
‘Senior civil servants and Ministers will, however, see this policy as their “get out of jail card” for situations where they get backed into a corner which they can’t get out of.’