Unreasonable complainant conduct policy

This policy sets out how we will respond to inappropriate or unacceptable behaviour by people who use our services.

On this page:

A message from the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria
1. Purpose
2. Defining unreasonable complainant conduct (UCC)
2.1 Unreasonable persistence
2.2 Unreasonable demands
2.3 Unreasonable lack of cooperation
2.4 Unreasonable arguments
2.5 Unreasonable behaviour
3. Options for responding to and managing UCC
3.1 Changing or restricting a person’s access to our service
3.2 Completely terminating a complainant’s access to our services
3.3 Other mechanisms for restricting access to services
3.4 Notification of restricting access to services
4. Review of a decision and periodic review
4.1 Review sought by complainant
4.2 Periodic review
5. Managing staff stress
5.1 Staff reactions to stressful situations

A message from the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria

Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) is committed to being accessible and responsive to all people who approach us for assistance and/or with a complaint. At the same time, our success depends on:

our ability to do our work and perform our functions in the most effective and efficient way possible
the health, safety and security of our staff, and
our ability to allocate our resources fairly across all the complaints we receive.

When people behave unreasonably in their dealings with us, their conduct can significantly affect our ability to serve the public effectively and meet our statutory responsibilities within available resources, as well as impact on the wellbeing of our people. As a result, we will take proactive and decisive action to manage any conduct that negatively and unreasonably affects our ability to do our work or the health, safety, and security of our staff.

As a public sector organisation that prides itself in good service, we do not take decisions in relation to restricting access to our services lightly. We understand that members of the public may be in distress when they contact us needing our help. If we are considering restricting services to a member of the public, our staff will ensure that all reasonable steps have been taken to assist a member of the public before changing or restricting access to our services.

Should we make a decision to restrict services to a member of the public, we will ensure that any limits are proportionate to the risk posed by the behaviour and inform them in writing about the decision, what access has been restricted or terminated and on what basis, and the option to seek a review of the decision and how they may do so.

We thank our staff for their ongoing work to ensure Victorians are offered assistance and market protections and for supporting us to provide our services to the Victorian community effectively, fairly and safely.

Nicole Rich
Executive Director, Regulatory Services
& Director, Consumer Affairs Victoria

1. Purpose

We recognise that Victorians often contact us because they require our assistance or advice, and we understand these matters can be sensitive in nature and be accompanied by heightened emotions. Most people who access our services act reasonably and responsibly in their interactions with us, even when they are experiencing high levels of distress, frustration and anger about their complaint. However, in a very small number of cases some people behave in ways that are inappropriate and unacceptable despite our best efforts to help them. This policy has been developed to assist the Victorian public who contact us to better understand how we manage UCC. Its aim is to ensure that all complainants:

have a clear understanding of the criteria that will be considered before we decide to change or restrict a complainant’s access to our services
are aware of the processes that will be followed to record and report UCC incidents as well as the procedures for consulting and notifying complainants about any proposed actions or decisions to change or restrict their access to our services
are familiar with the procedures for reviewing decisions made under this policy, including specific timeframes for review.

2. Defining unreasonable complainant conduct

Unreasonable complainant conduct (UCC) is any behaviour by a person which, because of its nature or frequency raises substantial wellbeing, health, safety, resource or equity issues for our organisation, our staff, other service users and complainants or the complainant themselves.
UCC can be divided into five categories of conduct:

Unreasonable persistence
Unreasonable demands
Unreasonable lack of cooperation
Unreasonable arguments
Unreasonable behaviours.

2.1 Unreasonable persistence

Unreasonable persistence is continued, incessant and unrelenting conduct by a complainant that has a disproportionate and unreasonable impact on our organisation, staff, services, time and/or resources. Some examples of unreasonably persistent behaviour include:

an unwillingness or inability to accept reasonable and logical explanations including final decisions that have been comprehensively considered and dealt with
persistently demanding a review simply because it is available and without arguing or presenting a case for one
pursuing and exhausting all available review options when it is not warranted and refusing to accept that further action cannot or will not be taken on their complaints
reframing a complaint in an effort to get it taken up again
bombarding our staff/organisation with phone calls, visits, letters, emails (including cc’d correspondence) after repeatedly being asked not to do so
contacting different people within our organisation and/or externally to get a different outcome or more sympathetic response to their complaint – internal and external forum shopping.

2.2 Unreasonable demands

Unreasonable demands are any demands (express or implied) that are made by a complainant that have a disproportionate and unreasonable impact on our organisation, staff, services, time and/or resources. Some examples of unreasonable demands include:

demanding services that are of a nature or scale that we cannot provide when this has been explained to them clearly and repeatedly
insisting on outcomes that are not possible or appropriate in the circumstances – for example, for someone to be sacked or prosecuted, an apology and/or compensation when there is no reasonable basis for expecting this
issuing instructions and making demands about how we have/should handle their complaint, the priority it was/should be given, or the outcome that was/should be achieved
insisting on talking to a senior manager or the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria personally when it is not appropriate, warranted or in accordance with existing branch escalation procedure
emotional manipulation of staff with the intention to intimidate, harass, shame, seduce or portray themselves as being victimised when this is not the case.

2.3 Unreasonable lack of cooperation

Unreasonable lack of cooperation is an unwillingness and/or inability by a complainant to cooperate with our organisation, staff, or complaints system and processes that results in a disproportionate and unreasonable use of our services, time and/or resources. Some examples of unreasonable lack of cooperation include:

sending a constant stream of comprehensive and/or disorganised information without clearly defining any issues of complaint or explaining how they relate to the core issues being complained about – only where the complainant is clearly capable of doing this
providing little or no detail with a complaint or presenting information in ‘dribs and drabs’
refusing to follow or accept our instructions, suggestions, or advice without a clear or justifiable reason for doing so
arguing frequently and/or with extreme intensity that a particular solution is the correct one in the face of valid contrary arguments and explanations
displaying unhelpful or uncooperative behaviour – such as withholding information, acting dishonestly, misquoting others, and so forth.

2.4 Unreasonable arguments

Unreasonable arguments include any arguments that are not based in reason or logic, that are incomprehensible, false or inflammatory, or trivial and that disproportionately and unreasonably impact upon our organisation, staff, services, time, and/or resources. Arguments are unreasonable when they:

fail to follow a logical sequence
are not supported by any evidence and/or are based on conspiracy theories
lead a complainant to reject all other valid and contrary arguments
are trivial when compared to the amount of time, resources and attention that the complainant demands
are false, inflammatory or defamatory.

2.5 Unreasonable behaviour

Unreasonable behaviour is conduct that is unreasonable in all circumstances – regardless of how stressed, angry or frustrated a complainant is – because it unreasonably compromises the health, safety and security of our staff, other service users or the complainant themselves. Some examples of unreasonable behaviours include:

acts of aggression, verbal abuse, derogatory, racist, or grossly defamatory remarks
harassment, intimidation or physical violence
rude, confronting and threatening correspondence
threats of harm to self or third parties, threats with a weapon or threats to damage property including bomb threats
stalking (in person or online)
emotional manipulation.

3. Options for responding to and managing UCC

Our staff will ensure that all reasonable steps have been taken to assist a member of the public before changing or restricting a complainant’s access to our services.
Before deciding to change or restrict a person’s access to our services, we will ensure:

any limits are proportionate to the risk posed by the behaviour
we are complying with legal obligations, including under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and the Equal Opportunity Act 2010
the decision has been properly authorised in accordance with this policy
the person has been informed in writing about the decision, what access has been restricted or terminated and on what basis, and the option to seek a review of the decision and how they may do so.

3.1 Changing or restricting a person’s access to our service

UCC incidents may be managed by limiting or adapting the ways that we interact with and/or deliver services to people by restricting:

who they have contact with – for example, limiting a person to a sole contact person/staff member in our organisation
what they can raise with us – for example, restricting the subject matter of communications that we will consider and respond to
when they can have contact – for example, limiting a person’s contact with our organisation to a particular time, day, or length of time, or curbing the frequency of their contact with us
where they can make contact – for example, limiting the locations where we will conduct face-to-face interviews to secured facilities or areas of the office
how they can make contact – for example, limiting or modifying the forms of contact that the person can have with us. This can include modifying or limiting face-to-face interviews, telephone and written communications, prohibiting access to our premises, contact through a representative only, taking no further action or terminating our services altogether.

When applying these restrictions, we recognise that discretion will need to be used to adapt them to suit a complainant’s personal circumstances, such as level of competency or literacy skills. In this regard, we also recognise that more than one approach may need to be used in individual cases to ensure their appropriateness and efficacy.

3.2 Completely terminating a complainant’s access to our services

In rare cases, and as a last resort when all other strategies have been considered and/or attempted, we may decide that it is necessary for our organisation to completely restrict a complainant’s contact/access to our services.

A decision to have no further contact with a complainant will only be made if it appears that the complainant is unlikely to modify their conduct and/or their conduct poses a significant risk for our staff or other parties including where it involves one or more of the following types of conduct:

Acts of aggression, verbal and/or physical abuse, threats of harm, harassment, intimidation, stalking, assault.
Damage to property while on our premises.
Threats with a weapon or common office items that can be used to harm another person or themselves.
Physically preventing a staff member from moving around freely either within their office or during an off-site visit – for example, entrapping them in their home.
Conduct that is otherwise unlawful.

CAV has a zero-tolerance policy towards any harm, abuse or threats directed towards its staff.

3.3 Other mechanisms for restricting access to services

A person’s access to our services and our premises may also be restricted (directly or indirectly) using the legal mechanisms such as trespass laws/legislation or legal orders to protect members of our staff from personal violence, intimidation or stalking by a complainant.

3.4 Notification of restricting access to services

In the case where a decision has been made to restrict access to services, the person will be advised in writing about the decision, what access has been restricted or terminated and on what basis, and the option to seek a review of the decision and how they may do so.

In some circumstances, a written warning may be issued to a complainant regarding unreasonable behaviour before restricting their access to our services.

4. Review of a decision and periodic review

4.1 Review sought by complainant

Complainants are entitled to seek one review of a decision to change/restrict their access to our services.

A request for a review of such a decision must be made within 60 days of the person being notified of the decision.

The request must include an explanation of why a review is necessary and any evidence about why it is believed that the decision should not stand.

Complainants requesting a review will be notified of the outcome within 30 days from when the request is received. Requests for review may be undertaken by a delegate nominated by the Director of CAV who was not part of the original decision.

If a complainant continues to be dissatisfied after the appeal process, they may seek an external review from an oversight agency such as the Victorian Ombudsman. The Ombudsman may accept the review (in accordance with its administrative jurisdiction) to ensure that we have acted fairly, reasonably, and consistently and have observed the principles of good administrative practice including, procedural fairness. Visit the Victorian Ombudsman website.

4.2 Periodic review

We will periodically review the service restrictions applied to complainants.

A review of the Unreasonable Complainant Conduct policy will be conducted every two years to ensure it remains updated and upholds consistency.

5. Managing staff stress

5.1 Staff reactions to stressful situations

We will follow relevant internal procedures to ensure the appropriate support is provided to staff when necessary. All staff are required to notify their manager of UCC incidents, and any stressful incidents experienced whilst performing normal work duties.