Home > For Consumers > Ageing > Aged Care Complaints

Aged Care Complaints

Policy on preventing and managing unreasonable complainant conduct

The Aged Care Complaints Scheme (the Scheme) provides a means through which concerns about the quality of care or services being delivered to people receiving residential or community aged care services that are subsidised by the Australian Government, can be considered and acted upon.

You may download this document in PDF format:

PDF printable version of the Policy on preventing and managing unreasonable complainant conduct (PDF 226 KB)

• Introduction
• What is considered unreasonable complainant conduct?
• Purpose of this policy
• Preventative and routine management strategies for responding to unreasonable complainant conduct
• Options for responding to unreasonable complainant conduct that cannot be resolved through preventative and routine management strategies
• Considerations prior to taking action under this policy
• Process for taking action under this policy
• Reconsideration and review
• Recordkeeping
• Future complaints
• National consistency and quality improvement
• References and further reading
• Appendix 1: Extract from Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Practice Manual
• Appendix 2: Policy Activation Flow Chart

Introduction

The Aged Care Complaints Scheme (the Scheme) provides a means through which concerns about the quality of care or services being delivered to people receiving residential or community aged care services that are subsidised by the Australian Government, can be considered and acted upon.

In 2010-11 the Scheme received 13,606 contacts, approximately 62 per cent (or 8,468) of which were within the scope of contacts that the Scheme can consider. In managing these complaints the Scheme aims to work cooperatively with all parties to find a resolution to the issues of concern.

The Scheme is committed to dealing with all complaints fairly and impartially and to providing a high quality service to those who contact the Scheme. The Scheme also has a responsibility to protect the safety and welfare of staff and to ensure that public resources are used efficiently and effectively.

In providing its services to the public, the Scheme does not generally place restrictions on a complainant’s contact with the Scheme. However, in a limited number of cases, where a complainant’s conduct is considered unreasonable and continues despite the implementation of preventative and routine management strategies, or where there may be a risk to the health or safety of a Scheme officer, it may be appropriate for the Scheme to do so.

This policy has been developed in line with the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Practice Manual¹ and provides guidance for Scheme staff on preventing the development of unreasonable complainant conduct and managing such conduct should it occur.

When applying this policy, the Scheme will ensure that it continues to effectively manage any complaint so as to ensure the Scheme’s objectives to:

• protect the health, welfare and dignity of recipients of aged care services
• resolve complaints in a way that achieves timely resolution and positive outcomes for individual care recipients
• educate complainants so they are empowered to make informed decisions and
• assist providers to identify opportunities for continuous improvement in understanding their responsibilities.

What is considered unreasonable complainant conduct?

The Commonwealth Ombudsman emphasises that bodies such as the Scheme must focus on the conduct of complainants ‘rather than on the complainant as a “difficult person”.’²

The Commonwealth Ombudsman³ categorises unreasonable complainant conduct into five groups, these are summarised below. A more comprehensive list of examples of behaviours falling under each category is at Appendix 1.
Top of page
Unreasonable persistence – including:

• Persisting with a complaint even though it has been comprehensively considered by the Scheme and all avenues of review have been exhausted.
• Reframing a complaint in an attempt to get the Scheme to re-consider or re-investigate the complaint.
• Showing an inability to accept the final decision.
• Insisting in interpreting the law or policy in a way that is not in accordance with generally accepted or expert views on the issue and insisting that action be taken accordingly.

Unreasonable demands – including:

• Insisting on outcomes that are unattainable.
• Wanting what is not possible or appropriate, such as access to sensitive documents, names of other complainants etc.
• Issuing instructions and making demands about how a complaint is to be handled.
• Making unreasonable resource demands that are out of proportion to the seriousness of the issue(s) raised.
• Wanting regular and lengthy phone contact where this is not warranted.

Unreasonable lack of cooperation – including:

• Presenting a large quantity of information which is not organised, sorted, classified or summarised, where the complainant is clearly capable of doing this.
• Presenting information in dribs and drabs.
• Refusing to define issues of the complaint or changing the complaint and raising new issues while the complaint is in the process of being considered.
• Displaying unhelpful behaviour, for example withholding information, being dishonest, misquoting others, overloading the Scheme with documents that are not relevant to the case.

Unreasonable arguments – including:

• Persisting with a view that is not supported by any evidence.
• Interpreting facts in a clearly irrational/unreasonable way and insisting that this interpretation is the correct one.
• Insisting on the importance of an issue that is clearly trivial.

Unreasonable behaviour – including:

• Displaying confronting behaviour, for example, rudeness, aggression, threats and harassment.
• Making threats of self-harm or harm to others.
• Displaying manipulative behaviour.

Purpose of this policy

In line with the approach taken by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Scheme recognises that dealing with unreasonable complainant conduct is part of the core business of the Scheme.⁴

The Scheme advocates the use of preventative and routine management strategies, as outlined in this policy, to respond appropriately to complainant conduct which may be considered unreasonable. In the vast majority of cases, issues between the Scheme and a complainant arising from unreasonable conduct can be resolved through the use of these strategies and discussion between the two parties, without the need for restrictions on the complainant.

This policy outlines the process for managing unreasonable complainant conduct which continues despite the implementation of preventative and routine management strategies by the Scheme. Where the Scheme is concerned about the conduct of a complainant and has not been able to reach a satisfactory outcome in managing this conduct, or there is a serious immediate risk to the mental or physical health of a Scheme officer because of the complainant’s conduct, then formal restrictions under this policy will be considered. The Scheme envisages that these restrictions would only be used in a limited number of cases.

This policy provides guidance for Scheme staff on what is considered unreasonable complainant conduct, what options for action are available to manage unreasonable conduct and who can authorise these actions.
Top of page

Preventative and routine management strategies for responding to unreasonable complainant conduct

Unreasonable complainant conduct may result in Scheme resources being unnecessarily diverted and, in extreme cases, may pose a threat to the physical and mental well-being of a staff member.

The Scheme will seek to prevent and manage unreasonable complainant conduct in a range of ways, including:

• Managing the complainant’s expectations to ensure that they are realistic, for example making it clear to the complainant whether the remedy they are seeking is achievable;
• Advising what the Scheme can and cannot do and will or will not do in respect of the specific issues raised in the complaint;
• Being clear that while the complainant owns the issue, the Scheme decides how the complaint is managed, what resources should be allocated and what the outcome will be;
• Keeping the complainant informed of the progress of their complaint;
• Avoiding unnecessary delays and informing the complainant if agreed action or timeframes are not met;
• Maintaining professional and courteous contact with the complainant, but explaining firmly and clearly that calls that become unproductive or circular will be terminated;
• Ensuring that complainants are aware of their responsibility to treat Scheme staff with respect, to provide information and to cooperate with the Scheme officer;
• Considering whether differing communication styles may be contributing to miscommunication or misunderstandings between a complainant and a Scheme officer and, in such cases, transferring the case to another officer to manage; and
• Providing clear reasons for the Scheme’s decisions.

Where prevention and routine management strategies are ineffective in addressing unreasonable conduct the Scheme may consider taking action to manage the conduct by restricting access to the Scheme.

Options for responding to unreasonable complainant conduct that cannot be resolved through preventative and routine management strategies

Where Scheme strategies to prevent and manage unreasonable complainant conduct are unsuccessful, the Scheme may consider imposing restrictions on the complainant’s interactions with the Scheme. Restrictions imposed under this policy will be appropriate and proportionate to the unacceptable complainant conduct and may include:

• Placing time limits on telephone conversations and personal contacts;
• Restricting telephone calls to specified days and times;
• Requesting contact in a particular form (for example, letters only);
• Refusing to register and process further complaints about the same matter (unless new and important issues are raised);
• Asking the complainant to enter into an agreement with the Scheme about their conduct and how they interact with the Scheme;
• Where a decision on a complaint has been made and the review processes exhausted, informing the complainant that future correspondence relating to the same matter will be read and placed on the file but not acknowledged or responded to. A designated officer will be identified who will read future correspondence and identify any new issues that might require an own motion investigation.

Top of page

Considerations prior to taking action under this policy

It is not unusual for complainants to be distressed or persistent if they feel that a wrong has been perpetrated against them or someone they care for. In order for conduct to be considered unreasonable, it must go beyond what is ‘normal’ given the situational stress⁵ that the complainant is under.

Prior to contemplating action under this policy, consideration should be given to the pattern of a complainant’s conduct. A single episode of unreasonable conduct, with the possible exception of physical violence against a Scheme officer, should not result in action under this policy.

Similarly, raising legitimate queries or criticisms of complaints handling by the Scheme as a case progresses, for example, failure of the Scheme to keep the complainant informed about progress, or expressing concern with the outcomes of a case and seeking to have them reviewed, should not in itself result in complainant conduct being considered unreasonable.

Responding to emotional distress, an outburst of frustration or anger, and concerns or expressions of dissatisfaction is the core business of the Scheme.

In considering action under this policy the full context of the case and the complainant’s personal circumstances must be taken into account. The same conduct may be unreasonable in one set of circumstances, but may not be unreasonable in another.

Consistent with the Managing unreasonable complainant conduct practice manual produced by the Commonwealth Ombudsman⁶, in determining if a complainant’s conduct is unreasonable, the Scheme will consider:

• The merits of the case – is there an inherent right or wrong in the matter?
• The circumstances of the complainant – does the complainant have the health, intellectual, educational, language, financial and social resources required to cooperate and meet the requirements of the complaints management process?
• Proportionality – is the complainant’s distress in reasonable proportion to the loss or wrong suffered?
• Responsiveness – do calming measures and explanation help to settle the complainant down?
• Personal boundaries – does the case officer dealing with the complainant feel threatened or unduly stressed by their encounters with the complainant?
• Conduct that is unreasonable and unacceptable in all circumstances – does the complainant display inherently unacceptable behaviour, such as aggression, threats, stalking, violence and/or assault?

Where unreasonable conduct relates to violence, abuse and/or assault, the Scheme officer affected should notify their Scheme Director to discuss whether the conduct may need to be escalated and/or reported to the appropriate authorities.

Process for taking action under this policy

Ensuring that the complainant is aware that their actions are considered unreasonable

Where a Scheme officer(s) is concerned about a complainant’s conduct and considers it to be unreasonable, they will discuss this conduct with their Scheme Director. If, having considered the merits of the case, the Scheme Director agrees that the conduct is unreasonable, the Director will:

• explain to the complainant that their conduct is considered unreasonable and why and
• advise the complainant that if the conduct continues the Scheme may consider placing some limitations around their interactions with the Scheme.

This information should be conveyed to the complainant verbally and a record of the conversation filed on the complaints management system and paper file with the relevant case or cases appropriately referenced and linked.

If the complainant’s unreasonable conduct ceases, no further action will be taken. If the complainant’s unreasonable conduct continues, action to limit the complainant’s interactions with the Scheme may be considered.
Top of page

Restricting access or limiting Scheme interactions with the complainant

The decision to restrict access to the Scheme or to limit the Scheme’s interactions with the complainant will be taken at the State or Territory Manager level.⁷

An officer will prepare a written proposal for consideration by the State or Territory Manager. This proposal will outline:

• information about the complainant’s unreasonable conduct (based on material documented on the complaints management system and/or relevant files)
• the Scheme’s actions to address the complainants issues and manage the unreasonable conduct
• the impact of the unreasonable conduct on Scheme resources, including the impact on staff
• the nature of any proposed restrictions and
• the period of time for which the proposed restrictions would apply.

In considering whether or not to designate a complainant’s conduct as unreasonable and implement restrictions on contact with the Scheme, the decision maker will assure themselves that:

• the complaint is being, or has been, managed appropriately
• any decision reached on the complaint is the correct one
• communications with the complainant have been adequate and appropriate
• the Scheme has attempted to manage the unreasonable conduct (for example, the Scheme has attempted to correct any false beliefs that the complainant may hold about what can be achieved through the Scheme; the Scheme’s expectations of the complainant have been clearly articulated; verbally abusive complainants have been advised that such conduct is not acceptable)
• the complainant is not now providing any significant new information that might impact on how the Scheme views the complaint and
• the complainant’s conduct represents a threat to the health and safety of Scheme officers and/or is resulting in diversion of resources from other meritorious cases.

The outcome of this decision will be documented and recorded with relevant case or cases appropriately referenced and linked.

Communication with the complainant

Where a decision is made to restrict the complainant’s contact with the Scheme or limit the Scheme’s interactions with the complainant, the complainant will be advised in writing of the decision. This advice will detail:

• the reason for the decision, including the conduct that the Scheme finds unreasonable, including specific examples
• the nature and duration of the restriction(s) that will apply
• information on how the complainant may request a reconsideration of the decision
• information on when the decision will be routinely reviewed
• information about how the complainant may make contact with the Scheme in relation to other issues which are not related to the case in hand and
• contact details for the relevant state or territory aged care advocacy service and information on the role of the service, where appropriate. Where the unreasonable conduct relates to violence or abuse, it is not considered appropriate to provide contact details for the advocacy service.

If the complainant attempts to make contact with the Scheme at times not specified in the restrictions, the Scheme officer who takes the call will remind the complainant of the restrictions and politely terminate the call.
Top of page

Communication with staff

All communications with staff should be considered against the ‘need to know’ principle and the need to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the complainant and associated case(s). Where a decision is made to restrict a complainant’s contact with the Scheme or limit the Scheme’s interactions with the complainant the following people will be advised of the decision and the reasons for the decision:

• Scheme intake officers in the relevant state or territory office
• Scheme resolution officers in the relevant state or territory office
• Scheme Directors in the relevant state or territory office
• Assistant Secretary, Aged Care Complaints Branch
• First Assistant Secretary, Office of Aged Care Quality and Compliance and
• The Office of the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing.

If it becomes apparent that the complainant is contacting other Scheme or Departmental officers in contravention of the restrictions, these officers will also be advised of the restrictions and the reasons for imposing them.

Reconsideration and review

Routine review

Any restrictions placed on a complainant will be reconsidered by the Scheme, at least every three months. This routine review will be undertaken by the State or Territory Manager.
In undertaking the routine review the Scheme will consider the following:

• Is there ongoing contact with the complainant? If not, is there any reason why the restrictions should not be removed?
• If there is ongoing contact:
  • Has the complainant complied with the imposed restriction(s)? If so, has this compliance been maintained throughout the period under review?
  • During the period under review, has the complainant displayed conduct that is considered unreasonable? If so, what is the nature of this conduct?
  • Is there any evidence to suggest the restriction needs to continue? If so, what evidence?

Where the circumstances have changed, the restrictions may be removed or altered.

Where the complainant is no longer contacting the Scheme or their conduct is no longer considered unreasonable, the restrictions will be removed.

The outcomes of this reconsideration will be documented and recorded with relevant case or cases appropriately referenced and linked.

Where a decision is made to continue the restrictions for a further period (whether in the same or in an altered form), the complainant will be notified of the decision and provided with information regarding how to seek a reconsideration of that decision.
Where a decision is made to remove the restrictions and where the complainant continues to be in contact with the Scheme, the complainant will be notified of the decision.

Where restrictions are removed and the unreasonable conduct which led to the original restrictions recommences, the Scheme will consider reinstating the restrictions immediately.
Top of page

Reconsideration

Where a complainant objects to a decision of the Scheme to restrict the complainant’s contact with the Scheme or to limit the Scheme’s interactions with the complainant, they may apply for an internal reconsideration of the decision. An application for reconsideration should be in writing, where the complainant is capable of doing so, and state the reasons why the complainant believes that restrictions should not apply and include any supporting documentation.

As reconsiderations cannot be undertaken by the original decision maker, the reconsideration will be undertaken by another State or Territory Manager who is an SES Band 1 or above, or by the Assistant Secretary, Aged Care Complaints Branch, or the First Assistant Secretary, Office of Aged Care Quality and Compliance.

The reconsideration will be conducted within 21 days of receipt of the request for reconsideration and the complainant will be advised of the outcome. This advice will state the reasons for the decision and provide information on how the complainant may seek a review of the decision by the Aged Care Commissioner or an investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Recordkeeping

In accordance with the Scheme’s guidelines, the Scheme will create and maintain records on the complaints management system and paper file with relevant case or cases appropriately referenced and linked, in the form of file notes:

• detailing the specific complainant conduct that is considered unacceptable, including date, time and nature of the contact and a factual description of the conduct that was of concern
• documenting any request by Scheme staff to classify a complainant’s conduct as unreasonable and the outcome of the request
• documenting any decision in respect of a proposal to restrict access
• documenting any reconsideration decision or decision following a routine review and the reasons for that decision
• documenting any contact with the complainant once the policy has been applied and
• documenting any refusal to accept or take no further action for a ‘new’ complaint from the complainant because it re-hashes the previous complaint and the complainant is not providing any new information that may change the Scheme’s view of the complaint.⁸

Scanned signed copies of all correspondence to the complainant relating to this issue will also be included on the complaints management system. The Scheme will maintain a historical record.

It is acknowledged that the written proposal to activate the policy may contain sensitive information in relation to how the unreasonable complainant conduct has impacted staff. Therefore, documentation in relation to activating the policy and the reasons for any decisions should be recorded in a separate file (restricted access).

Records relating to action taken under this policy, including the above mentioned documents, are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1983.
Top of page

Future complaints

Where a complaint relating to a new issue is received from a person who has previously demonstrated unreasonable complainant conduct, but is not currently subject to any restrictions, both the complaint and the complainant will be treated on its merits.

Where a complaint relating to a new issue is received from a person who is currently subject to restrictions due to unreasonable complainant conduct, then the Scheme will consider whether these restrictions should apply in respect to the new case and will advise the complainant accordingly.

National consistency and quality improvement

Where action is taken under this policy, the particular circumstances of the case will be documented and submitted for discussion at the next meeting of the Scheme Operations Committee. This documentation should:

• protect the privacy and confidentiality of the complainant and associated Scheme case(s)
• outline the complainant conduct in question and why it was considered unreasonable
• outline the strategies implemented to try to manage the unreasonable conduct prior to taking action under this policy
• outline the management strategies implemented under this policy
• include an assessment of the effectiveness of the actions taken in managing the unreasonable complainant conduct and
• include any lessons learnt, including proposed amendments to this policy or to other documentation, such as the Scheme Procedural Guidelines.

The purpose of reporting on each case to the Scheme Operations Committee is to:

• share strategies and learning
• facilitate national consistency in the implementation of this policy
• identify aspects of the policy that may need to be enhanced and
• identify other areas for improvement, such as staff support and training; decision making etc.

References and further reading

1. NSW Ombudsman (August 2007), Unreasonable complainant conduct: interim practice manual, Sydney, NSW.
2. Commonwealth Ombudsman (June 2009), Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Practice Manual, Canberra, ACT.
3. Local Government Ombudsman (January 2007, Revised April 2009), Guidance note on ‘unreasonably persistent’ complainants and ‘unreasonable complainant behaviour’, downloaded in August 2010 from the Local Government Ombudsman website at http://www.lgo.org.uk/publications/guidance-notes/unreasonably-persistent-complainants/

Appendix 1

Extract from Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Practice Manual⁹

Framework of strategies for managing unreasonable complainant conduct

The unreasonable complainant conduct commonly seen by many agencies can, in most cases, be grouped into five categories:

• Unreasonable persistence
• Unreasonable demands
• Unreasonable lack of cooperation
• Unreasonable arguments
• Unreasonable behaviour.

Table 1 sets out these conduct categories, the associated trigger conduct and the corresponding strategy for managing that conduct. This framework is a guide – it should be applied flexibly, bearing in mind that more than one category of conduct may need to be managed at one time.

The use of these strategies must also be based on the clear understanding that:

• every complainant deserves to be treated with fairness and respect
• in the absence of very good reasons to the contrary, members of the public have a right to access the agency
• no complainant, regardless of how much time and effort is taken up in responding to their complaint, should be unconditionally deprived of having their complaint properly and appropriately considered
• a complainant whose conduct is unreasonable may have a legitimate complaint
• the substance of the complaint dictates the level of resources allocated to it, not the complainant’s wishes, demands or behaviour.

Top of page

Table 1 Management Strategies

Conduct category	Unreasonable conduct (trigger)	Management strategies
Unreasonable persistence	Unreasonable persistence includes: persisting with a complaint even though it has been comprehensively considered by an agency, and all avenues of review have been exhausted reframing a complaint in an attempt to get it taken up again showing an inability to accept the final decision insisting that a particular solution is the correct one in the face of valid contrary or alternative arguments persisting in interpreting the law or policy in a way that is not in accordance with generally accepted or expert views on the issue and insisting that action be taken accordingly persisting in wanting to know where to go next, when it has been explained that there is nowhere else to go demanding a review because it is available, but not arguing a case for a review making an issue out of anything getting gratification from the process of regular contact with the case officer, possibly including inventing unnecessary reasons for having such contact.	Strategies for dealing with unreasonable persistence are about saying 'no'. They include: communicating clearly and transparently - eg telling complainants firmly that something is 'not going to happen' to the 'where-do-I-go-to-now' question, telling complainants that not all problems have an institutional solution and they may have reached the end of the line, unless a realistic referral can be made requiring complainants who want a review to provide an argument for one - eg to tell the agency how it has erred or provide new information – and, if they don't, their file will remain closed providing one review only maintaining a 'no means no' stance following review adopting, when appropriate, a firm no-further-correspondence or contact stance and requiring any variation from this to be authorised at a high level not allowing complainants to reframe the complaint to re-enter the process, unless they raise new and important issues ending telephone calls that are unproductive asserting the agency's position - eg 'I acknowledge that your view is ... , we see it differently', or 'I acknowledge that your view differs from ours, however, our job is to make a decision about ... and this is what we have decided' making it clear that our decision is final and, for better or worse, we have made our decision. Managing unreasonable persistence also includes: managing expectations from the beginning, including ensuring initial expectations are realistic adopting a firm and authoritative communication style both in writing and verbally defining key issues and keeping the focus on them.
Unreasonable demands	Unreasonable demands include: insisting on outcomes that are unattainable insisting on a 'moral' outcome - eg justice in the community interest, when really a personal interest is at stake demanding an apology or compensation when no reasonable basis for expecting such outcomes exists wanting revenge, retribution wanting what is not possible or appropriate - eg copies of sensitive documents, names and contact details of staff, other complainants or whistleblowers issuing instructions and making demands about how a complaint should be handled providing supporting details that are extraordinarily detailed when such detail is not relevant to the complaint making unreasonable resource demands, out of proportion to the seriousness of the issue wanting regular and lengthy phone contact where this is not warranted showing reactions or demand for action that are out of proportion to the significance of the issue moving the goal posts - changing the desired outcome shopping for a sympathetic ear in the agency - demanding to talk to a supervisor or the manager personally placing the agency on an extensive email copy list and expecting responses to these emails consistently creating complexity where there is none presenting as overly needy or dependent - eg wanting to transfer responsibility for their wellbeing to the complaint handler or agency.	Strategies for dealing with unreasonable demands are about setting limits. They include: letting complainants know in advance how the agency intends to deal with the complaint - having a plan and sticking to it making sure the complainant is clear that the agency decide how the complaint should be handled clarifying the limitations of the particular complaint handling system avoiding being drawn into hypothesising, catastrophising, conspiracy theories, unproductive argument and personal attacks more generally restricting contact to defined times and staff members where necessary responding only to emails and mail addressed to the agency directly - not responding to mail where the agency is copied in ending telephone calls that are unproductive limiting contact to writing only not doing for unreasonably demanding complainants something the agency would not normally do for any other complainant, just to appease them as a last resort, informing the complainant that the agency finds their interactions unreasonably demanding and setting defined limits for further contact. Managing unreasonable demands also includes: managing expectations for the beginning, including ensuring initial expectations are realistic adopting a firm and authoritative communication style both in writing and verbally defining key issues and keeping the focus on them.
Unreasonable lack of cooperation	Unreasonable lack of cooperation includes: presenting a large quantity of information which is not organised, sorted, classified, summarised, where the complainant is clearly capable of doing this presenting information in dribs and drabs - refusing to present all information at the outset refusing to define issues of complaint - 'the attached (usually a large amount of information) speaks for itself' - where the complainant is clearly capable of doing this focusing on principles rather than substantive issues changing the complaint and raising new issues while the complaint is in the process of being considered displaying unhelpful behaviour eg withholding information, being dishonest, misquoting others, swamping the agency with documents.	Strategies for dealing with unreasonable lack of cooperation are about setting conditions. They include: requiring complainants to organise or summarise the information they have provided before the agency will look at the complaint (where they are capable of doing this) requiring complainants to define what their issues are or to pursue further inquiries before the agency will look at the complaint telling complainants that the agency will not look at their complaint until all the information has been presented ending the agency's involvement in the complaint if it is discovered that the complainant has been wilfully misleading or untruthful in a significant way. Managing unreasonable lack of cooperation also includes: managing expectations from the beginning, including ensuring initial expectations are realistic adopting a firm and authoritative communication style both in writing and verbally defining key issues and keeping the focus on them.
Unreasonable arguments	Unreasonable arguments include: holding irrational beliefs - eg seeing cause and effect links where there are clearly none holding what is clearly a conspiracy theory unsupported by any evidence interpreting facts in a clearly irrational/unreasonable way and insisting this interpretation is the correct one. arguing the clearly bizarre insisting on the importance of an issue that is clearly trivial.	The strategy for dealing with unreasonable arguments in complaints is primarily about declining or discontinuing the agency's involvement. These complaints need to be declined at the beginning, or discontinued as soon as it becomes clear that the complaint is groundless. Alternatively, if unreasonable arguments are mixed with reasonable arguments, the strategy should be to refuse to deal with the unreasonable portion. This category of conduct is often associated with mental illness.
Unreasonable behaviour	Unreasonable behaviour includes: displaying confronting behaviour - eg rudeness, aggression, threats or harassment sending rude, confronting or threatening letters making threats of self harm making threats of harm to others displaying manipulative behaviour - overly ingratiating, tears or veiled threats.	The strategies for dealing with unreasonable behaviour are primarily about 'saying no' to unacceptable behaviours, and setting limits and conditions for future interactions. Overt anger, aggression and threats in person, on the phone or in writing are never acceptable. Dealing with these includes having risk management protocols in place. Also: Return letters framed in rude and intemperate language and request that the complainant reframe their concerns in more moderate language. Point out that more moderate language is clearer and therefore more likely to achieve better outcomes. End telephone calls and interviews if the complainant becomes abusive and confronting.

Top of page

Appendix 2

Policy Activation Flow Chart

[D]

---

1 - Commonwealth Ombudsman (June 2009), Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Practice Manual, Canberra ACT.
2 - Commonwealth Ombudsman (June 2009), Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Practice Manual, Canberra ACT, p. 3.
3 - Commonwealth Ombudsman (June 2009), Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Practice Manual, Canberra ACT, pp. 12-16.
4 - Commonwealth Ombudsman (June 2009), Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Practice Manual, Canberra ACT, p. 4.
5 - Commonwealth Ombudsman (June 2009), Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Practice Manual, Canberra ACT, page 11.
6 - Commonwealth Ombudsman (June 2009), Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Practice Manual, Canberra ACT, page 11.
7 - NOTE: Where the State or Territory Manager is unavailable, the decision may be made by another State or Territory Manager who is an SES Band 1 or above; or by the Assistant Secretary, Aged Care Complaints Branch or the First Assistant Secretary, Office of Aged Care Quality and Compliance.
8 - NOTE: Section 13A.15 of the Complaints Principles 2011 provides that if the Secretary to take no further action on an issue under paragraph 13A.6(a), the Secretary must, as soon as practicable, give the complainant, unless the complainant was made anonymously, written feedback about
-The Secretary’s decision to take no further action and the reasons for that decision;
-How the complainant may apply for reconsideration by the Secretary or examination of the Secretary’s decision by the Aged Care Commissioner;
-Any other appropriate feedback.
9 - Commonwealth Ombudsman (June 2009), Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Practice Manual, Canberra ACT, pp.12-16.

Top of page