On this page: The Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Rules | Australia-wide resources | Example Response | Other ways you can be silenced
Understanding the unreasonable complainant conduct rule
Anyone who has written to a council, department, or government agency with a genuine, calmly worded question and been met with silence, or a form letter saying no further correspondence will be entered into, has likely run into a real and specific administrative rule, one most people have never heard named. It is not a myth, and it is not invented. It comes from Ombudsman Western Australia’s guideline Dealing with Unreasonable Complainant Conduct, part of a national framework coordinated by the New South Wales Ombudsman and used by Parliamentary Ombudsman offices across Australia. Understanding exactly what it says, and what it doesn’t, is the difference between an agency lawfully managing a genuinely difficult situation and an agency using the label as a convenient way to stop answering an inconvenient question.
What the rule is actually for
The rule exists for real reasons. A small number of complainants do behave in ways that genuinely consume disproportionate agency time and resources, at the expense of everyone else waiting for a fair hearing. The guideline was written to protect frontline staff from abuse and to help agencies manage that narrow situation fairly. It was never intended, on its own wording, as a general tool for declining to answer questions an agency finds uncomfortable.
The only conduct it actually covers
The guideline defines unreasonable complainant conduct narrowly, in three categories only:
- Habitual or obsessive conduct: someone who cannot let go of a complaint despite the agency’s best efforts, and whose demands substantially and unfairly divert resources from other people’s matters.
- Rude, angry, or harassing conduct.
- Aggressive conduct, ranging from verbal aggression to physical threat.
Disagreeing with a decision, disputing a charge, or asking pointed but calm questions about an agency’s authority to act does not appear anywhere in that list.
The three tests that must all be met before an agency can restrict a response
Before an agency may lawfully restrict, withhold, or withdraw its response to a complainant, its own guideline requires all three of the following to be satisfied together, not just one:
- The agency’s complaint procedure must have been correctly and completely followed, with no part of the original matter overlooked or left inadequately addressed.
- The person’s conduct must have become so habitual, obsessive, or intimidating that it is an unreasonable demand on the agency’s resources.
- All internal review or appeal avenues must already have been exhausted.
If a person’s very first letter is met with silence, or with an early “no further correspondence” response, the first and third tests plainly cannot have been met yet. There has been no properly completed process to point to, and no internal appeal to have exhausted.
Who is allowed to make that call
The guideline requires that any decision to restrict a response be made personally by the agency’s Chief Executive Officer, or a senior delegate in a larger organisation, and that this officer sign any letter confirming it. It is explicitly described as a step for extreme situations, not a routine or automatic one. A form letter from a general mailbox, unsigned by anyone senior, sits uneasily against that requirement.
Even at its most restrictive, it isn’t total silence
The guideline’s own template language, for a complainant who has genuinely exhausted every proper avenue, is that the agency will still respond to correspondence containing significant new information or raising new issues requiring fresh action. Total, indefinite silence in response to every future letter isn’t what the framework itself describes.
How to push through it, properly
If correspondence has gone unanswered and there’s a concern this mechanism is being used, or misused, the useful step is not to argue the point in the abstract, but to ask the agency to show its working. A short letter, calmly worded, can ask the agency to confirm in writing:
- Whether it considers the correspondence to meet the definition of unreasonable conduct, and if so, which of the three categories it falls under, with reference to specific examples.
- Whether all three threshold tests have actually been met, addressed one by one.
- The name and title of the senior officer who made that decision.
- If none of the above applies, that a substantive response will now be provided, and by when.
If the agency cannot, or will not, answer those specific questions, that silence is itself informative. From there, every Australian jurisdiction has an Ombudsman’s office that can review how a complaint was handled, and in Western Australia specifically, the Local Government Inspector now has a dedicated compliance role for local councils. Neither of those avenues requires the person raising the concern to be an expert in administrative law. They exist precisely so an ordinary person doesn’t have to be.
The honest caveat
None of this means every unanswered letter is unlawful, or that every agency invoking this rule is acting in bad faith. Some complainants genuinely do meet the definition, and agencies are entitled to protect staff and resources when they do. The point of understanding the actual wording isn’t to assume the worst of every silence, it’s to be able to tell the difference between a properly applied rule and an improperly applied label, and to know exactly what to ask when that distinction matters.
Australia-wide
AI: Here’s what I could verify directly for each jurisdiction. Where I found a specific guideline document, I’ve linked it; where I could only confirm the office and its general publications area, I’ve said so rather than guess at a document URL.
Western Australia Ombudsman WA, Dealing with Unreasonable Complainant Conduct (guideline) https://ombudsman.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-05/Dealing-with-unreasonable-complainant-conduct.pdf Also listed on the main Effective Complaint Handling Guidelines page: https://ombudsman.wa.gov.au/publications-resources/effective-complaint-handling-guidelines
New South Wales NSW Ombudsman, Managing Unreasonable Conduct by a Complainant (the 2021 practice manual and model policy this whole framework originates from) https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/guidance-for-organisations/resources/managing-unreasonable-conduct-by-a-complainant Model policy specifically: https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/guidance-for-organisations/resources/managing-unreasonable-conduct-by-complainants-model-policy
Victoria Victorian Ombudsman, Good Practice Guide: Managing Complex Complainant Behaviour (2022), written to be read alongside the NSW manual https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/learn-from-us/practice-guides/managing-complex-complainant-behaviour/
Northern Territory Ombudsman NT, Unreasonable Complainant Conduct (agency guidance page, references the same NSW-led national manual) https://ombudsman.nt.gov.au/for-agencies/unreasonable-complainant-conduct
Commonwealth (and, in practice, the ACT, which the Commonwealth Ombudsman also serves) Commonwealth Ombudsman, Unreasonable Complainant Conduct fact sheet https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0031/35599/Unreasonable-complainant-conduct.pdf The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s site also hosts a full copy of the NSW manual: https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/35617/NSW-Ombudsmans-Managing-Unreasonable-Complainant-Conduct-guide.pdf
Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania I confirmed each office operates under the same national framework (all three are listed as project participants in the original joint manual), but I couldn’t locate a specific, current guideline document URL for any of them the way I could for the others. Rather than guess at a link, I’d suggest going to their publications or resources pages directly:
- Queensland Ombudsman: https://www.ombudsman.qld.gov.au
- Ombudsman SA: https://www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au
- Ombudsman Tasmania: https://www.ombudsman.tas.gov.au
One thing worth keeping in the article if you use this list: all of these, WA included, trace back to the same single source document, the NSW Ombudsman-led national manual from 2007, updated in 2021. So while the office names differ by state, the actual three-category conduct definition and threshold-test structure I set out earlier is, in substance, the same document nationally, not eight independently written frameworks that happen to agree.
Link URLs unchecked. Check all information if you intend to rely upon it.
Example response
[Agency Name] [Address]Re: Correspondence dated [date] regarding [matter], and any intention to restrict response under unreasonable complainant conduct provisions
Dear Sir or Madam/[or name if known],
I refer to my correspondence dated [date] and subsequent correspondence, to which I have not yet received a substantive response.
If [Agency Name] does not intend to respond further, or intends to limit or restrict its response, I would ask that this be expressly stated, together with the basis for it. I make this request because Australian public agencies, including local and state government bodies, generally operate under a common national framework for managing unreasonable complainant conduct, originating from the New South Wales Ombudsman’s Managing Unreasonable Conduct by a Complainant manual, a joint project of the Australasian Parliamentary Ombudsmen, and adopted in substantially the same form by the Ombudsman offices of every State and Territory, including [State/Territory Ombudsman name]. That framework permits an agency to restrict, withhold, or withdraw a response only where three threshold tests are all satisfied, and only in extreme circumstances:
- The agency’s own complaint procedure has been correctly and completely implemented, with no material element of the original correspondence overlooked or inadequately addressed.
- My conduct has become so habitual, obsessive, or intimidating that it constitutes an unreasonable demand on the agency’s resources, noting the framework’s own definition of unreasonable conduct is limited to habitual or obsessive behaviour, rude or harassing conduct, or aggressive conduct, none of which describes the correspondence I have sent.
- All internal review or appeal procedures available to me have been exhausted.
On the first of those tests specifically, I note that the volume and repetition of my correspondence is a direct consequence of the absence of a full and substantive response to my original enquiry. Had that first communication provided clear, complete disclosure of the relevant facts and reasons, no further correspondence would have been necessary. Any pattern of repeated contact should accordingly be attributed to the incompleteness of the agency’s own response, not to unreasonable conduct on my part, and I do not accept that the first test could be treated as met while that remains the case.
The framework further requires that any decision to restrict a response be made, and any letter to that effect signed, personally by the Chief Executive Officer or a senior delegate, not by a junior officer, and that even where a restriction is properly applied, recommended practice is to continue responding to correspondence that raises new issues or provides significant new information, rather than to cease responding altogether.
Accordingly, I would ask [Agency Name] to confirm, in writing:
- Whether it considers my correspondence meets the definition of unreasonable complainant conduct, and if so, which category (habitual or obsessive conduct, rude or harassing conduct, or aggressive conduct) it is said to fall within, with reference to the specific correspondence relied upon.
- Whether all three threshold tests set out above have been met, addressed individually, including the first test in light of the point made above.
- The name and title of the officer who made the decision to restrict or withhold a response, consistent with the CEO or senior delegate requirement.
- If none of the above applies, that a substantive response to the outstanding correspondence will now be provided, and the date by which I can expect it.
I make this request in writing so that the basis for any restriction, if one is intended, is recorded rather than left to be inferred from silence. Should this remain unresolved, I intend to raise the matter with [State/Territory Ombudsman name], or, if the agency is a local government, with the applicable local government oversight body in [State/Territory].
Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.
Respectfully,
[author block]A note on adapting this: the bracketed Ombudsman reference should be filled with whichever office actually applies, NSW Ombudsman, Victorian Ombudsman, Queensland Ombudsman, Ombudsman SA, Ombudsman Tasmania, Ombudsman NT, or the Commonwealth Ombudsman for Commonwealth agencies and the ACT. For a local council specifically, Western Australia now also has the Local Government Inspector as a separate first port of call, and it’s worth checking whether your own state has an equivalent local government-specific body before defaulting to the general Ombudsman.
Other ways you can be silenced
Four ways your correspondence with government can be lawfully limited, and how not to trigger any of them
Most people who write to a government agency never think about how their letter might be read from the other side of the desk. But there are four distinct, legally bounded mechanisms that can result in an agency limiting, restricting, or declining to engage further with a specific man or woman. Understanding what they actually require, and what they don’t, is the best protection against both being wrongly caught by one and having one wrongly invoked against you.
The baseline: what agencies are actually supposed to do
Before any of the four mechanisms below become relevant, it helps to know what ordinary good practice looks like. Ombudsman guidelines across every Australian jurisdiction set out the same basic expectations: a complaint or enquiry should be heard, properly considered, given a substantive answer or explanation, and, where appropriate, an apology or remedy. Silence, a form letter, or an answer that doesn’t actually address what was asked isn’t good practice, and it isn’t what any of the frameworks below were designed to permit as a default response.
One: the Unreasonable Complainant Conduct framework
This is the most commonly invoked mechanism, and the most commonly misapplied. It traces to a single national manual, coordinated by the NSW Ombudsman and adopted across every State and Territory Ombudsman’s office. It defines unreasonable conduct narrowly: habitual or obsessive behaviour that cannot be satisfied and unfairly drains resources, rude or harassing conduct, or aggressive conduct. Before an agency can lawfully restrict a response, three things must all be true: its own complaint process must have been properly and completely followed, the conduct must genuinely meet one of those narrow categories, and all internal review or appeal avenues must already be exhausted. The decision must be made and signed by a CEO or senior delegate, not a junior officer, and even then, most agencies commit to still responding to genuinely new issues.
Don’t do this: send multiple duplicate letters covering the same ground before the first has even been answered, use personal or inflammatory language toward staff, or keep re-raising a matter after every proper avenue has already ruled on it. All of these hand an agency a genuine, defensible basis to invoke this framework, even where the underlying question was fair.
Two: vexatious applicant declarations under freedom of information law
This is narrower and more formal. Under section 89K of the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act 1982, and equivalent provisions in most State FOI Acts, an agency must formally apply to the Information Commissioner (or the relevant State equivalent) to have someone declared a vexatious applicant, and carries the burden of proving it. The grounds are specific: an abuse of the FOI process, a manifestly unreasonable request, or using FOI to get around a restriction a court has already imposed. The person affected must be given a chance to respond before any declaration is made, and it can be reviewed by the tribunal.
Don’t do this: resubmit an identical FOI request shortly after it has already been answered or refused, or use an FOI application to try to obtain something a court has specifically ordered you not to have. A single firm, well-scoped request, even a persistent one pursued through proper internal and external review, doesn’t meet this threshold on its own.
Three: vexatious proceedings restriction, through the courts
This sits entirely outside any agency’s control. Every State and Territory has its own Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act, under which only a court, after full process, can restrict someone from filing further legal proceedings without the court’s leave, typically after a sustained pattern of unsuccessful or abusive litigation. No agency, council, or Ombudsman can impose this. It only affects what can be filed in court, not correspondence with a government body.
Don’t do this: file repeated, near-identical claims that have already failed, particularly against the same party over the same underlying issue. That pattern, not a single unsuccessful case, is what tends to draw this kind of order.
Four: the informal, unofficial cost of sounding like a template
This last one isn’t a formal declaration at all, and that’s exactly why it’s worth naming. Courts and government staff increasingly recognise certain recurring patterns of argument, demands to “prove” an officer’s authority, assertions that ordinary law doesn’t apply to the sender, invented fee schedules, or unusual signature and formatting conventions, as belonging to a body of pseudolegal material that has been repeatedly and directly rejected by courts, most thoroughly catalogued in the Canadian judgment Meads v Meads [2012] ABQB 571. There is no formal register or declaration involved. But correspondence that reads this way, even when written by someone with a genuinely valid underlying concern, risks being treated by an overworked officer as something to be filed rather than engaged with, purely because of its form rather than its substance.
Don’t do this, if you actually want an answer: keep correspondence to the plain factual and legal question you want addressed, cite real provisions of the actual Act that governs the actual body you’re writing to, and avoid language patterns associated with that genre, even where the underlying question is entirely legitimate. A calm, specific, well-cited letter gets read. A letter that opens by challenging the recipient’s authority to exist tends not to.
Writing correspondence that stays outside all four
- One issue per letter, clearly stated, with a specific request for a specific answer.
- Reference the actual section of the actual Act you believe applies, rather than a general assertion of rights.
- Use the agency’s own internal review process before escalating, and say so when you do escalate.
- Ask direct, falsifiable questions (“on what date was this decided, under what delegation, by whom”) rather than broad philosophical challenges.
- If a response doesn’t come, or is incomplete, say so plainly and ask again once, rather than sending a volume of repeat correspondence.
If you believe you’ve been wrongly silenced anyway
Ask the agency, in writing, to confirm plainly whether it considers any of the above frameworks to apply, and if so, which one, on what evidence, and decided by whom. If the answer doesn’t come, or doesn’t hold up against the actual published criteria, every jurisdiction has an Ombudsman able to review how a complaint was handled, and, for local government specifically in Western Australia, the Local Government Inspector now provides a dedicated compliance pathway.
Audi alteram partem, hear the other side, is the principle every one of these four mechanisms is actually built around. None of them, properly applied, is a way to avoid answering a question. Each one exists to stop a narrow, genuinely unmanageable minority of interactions from consuming resources needed elsewhere, and each one comes with its own built-in check to stop it being used for anything broader than that.
Last Updated 2 months ago
Views: 137