Reasonable correspondence and communication policy
The aim of this policy is to ensure we can devote a meaningful amount of time to everyone who contacts us, while also achieving our core aims of preventing fractures and helping people live well with osteoporosis.
Background
The Royal Osteoporosis Society (the ROS) is committed to providing a quality service to all our supporters and stakeholders. We welcome correspondence and communication from members of the public in all forms, whether by post, email or telephone, and through people visiting us by appointment in our office. In return, we expect everyone who comes into contact with our staff and volunteers (including Trustees) to treat them with respect.
The Trustees of the Royal Osteoporosis Society have an important legal duty to carry out the Society’s charitable purposes. As we’re a small organisation, staff and volunteer time is limited, which means that we have to think carefully about how this time is spread across all our activities, while making sure it is proportionate. This might mean that sometimes, we can’t respond to a person’s correspondence in quite the way that that individual wants – because that would require using disproportionate amount of time and resource.
We understand that the vast majority of issues raised with us are motivated by the best of intentions, ie. wanting to help people with osteoporosis and to advance medical knowledge about this condition. We also understand that sometimes, in difficult situations, people may act in a way that is out of character. Our aim is to respond to all communications in a helpful way. However, occasionally, people may behave in an unacceptable way despite our best efforts to respond to their communications. This makes it difficult for us to deal with these queries or complaints effectively. We also have a duty to protect the welfare and safety of our staff and volunteers if these communications become intrusive or distressing.
This policy applies to everyone who communicates with us, or accesses our services. It will enable us to manage unreasonable communications fairly and consistently, by setting out clearly what we consider to be unacceptable and the steps we may take to deal with such behaviour.
Expectations
What can you expect from us? Our staff and volunteers will always:
listen and try to understand
treat everyone who contacts us with respect, empathy, and dignity
What do we expect from people who communicate with us? In return, the ROS expects people who communicate with us to be courteous, and to engage with us in a way that means we can devote enough time to work effectively and efficiently to help people with osteoporosis.
What are reasonable and unreasonable requests and vexatious complaints?
We will always try to respond positively to reasonable requests and complaints. No person or organisation is perfect, and we will always try to acknowledge and learn from mistakes so that we can serve our supporters and service users in the best way possible.
Unacceptable behaviour means acting in a way that’s unreasonable, regardless of the level of someone’s stress, frustration, conviction or anger. It may involve acts, words or gestures which could cause another person distress or discomfort.
From time to time, customers might make requests that we cannot reasonably accommodate. This may include, but is not limited to:
the amount of information they seek
the nature and scale of the service they expect
the volume of correspondence they generate
We acknowledge that someone who is persistent is not necessarily behaving unreasonably. What is seen as an unreasonable demand will depend on the circumstances of each case. However, the behaviour of someone who persistently contacts us on the same issue, when that issue has already been reasonably responded to, can, in some cases, amount to unreasonable demand. Such behaviour takes up an unreasonable amount of our time and resources and can affect our ability to provide a service to others.
The table below is a guide to how we will assess each interaction on its own merits, deciding what is reasonable and what is not. The examples in the table are not exhaustive.
Reasonable | Not reasonable |
Being polite and constructive – please note that this does not exclude being assertive or being reasonably persistent. | Being abusive or aggressive towards ROS employees or volunteers (Annex 1 gives examples of this behaviour). |
Using a tone which recognises that employees or volunteers will be balancing competing priorities. | Using a tone which could reasonably be thought to put employees or volunteers under undue pressure. |
Waiting for us to respond to your communication before communicating with us again. | Contacting us repeatedly and frequently, without giving us enough time to respond to previous correspondence. |
Recognising that a reasonable timescale is needed to respond to correspondence and/or take action. | Insisting that action be taken in an unreasonably short timescale. |
Accepting that sometimes, opinions may differ, and that we may decide 1) that the issue of your communication is minor and 2) that we have responded adequately to your communication. | Focusing disproportionately on a matter, and continuing to focus on this same point despite receiving proportionate responses addressing the matter. |
Limiting communications about an issue to one person or one group of people at a time. | Adopting a ‘scatter gun’ approach: pursuing parallel communications about the same issue with different employees or volunteers. |
Limiting the number of people copied in to any communications to only those who are relevant to the issue, particularly if there is someone who could reasonably act as a “channel” for a group of people. An example of this would be, if you feel that an issue needs to be escalated, copying one member of the Senior Leadership Team (not the whole team) or one Trustee (not the whole Board). | Forwarding communications, or copying in, other people (internal and external to the ROS), if these people are not directly involved in the topic – particularly if: • this is a large group of people, or • involving these extra people could reasonably be interpreted to make the original ROS contact feel that they are being inappropriately “reported on” or pressured to respond in a certain way. |
Assuming that ROS employees or volunteers act in good faith unless there’s evidence to the contrary and, where there is, raising it formally. | Implying that employees or volunteers are acting in bad faith, without evidence or use of an appropriately formal process. |
Justifying and supporting any statements which indicate that the ROS may be putting people at risk of harm. | Making unjustified or unsupported statements about possible consequences of ROS activity, particularly if this refers to the sensitive matter of safeguarding. |
Asking permission if you wish to record any interaction with employees or volunteers, and only proceeding if you have this permission. | Recording meetings or conversations (whether face-to-face or on the telephone) without the prior knowledge or consent of all other people involved. |
Only forwarding copies of correspondence with the charity if it is full, unredacted and faithful to the original meaning. | Misrepresenting engagement with the charity in correspondence with others to create a negative impression. |
Following our complaints procedure. | Refusing to follow our complaints procedure, including refusal to cooperate with a complaint investigation process. |
Accepting the result of a complaints procedure, or contacting the Charity Commission if you feel that the result is unreasonable. | Pursuing a complaint with us after the complaints procedure has been exhausted. |
We’ll also have these behaviours in mind when it comes to other forms of related communication with ROS, such as consultation responses.
We appreciate that all these judgements are necessarily subjective, and that someone communicating with us might not agree with our assessment.
How we will respond to incidents of unreasonable behaviour
Meetings and calls – immediate response
During a “live” interaction (ie anything not in writing) we may:
during a phone call, place the caller on hold, or end the call
during a meeting, end the meeting
We will always warn the individual in question before we do this. We will keep records of such action, and a manager will discuss what has happened with the member of staff or volunteer.
Response over a period of time
More generally, we may take any of the following actions to limit an individual’s contact with us:
limiting interaction to writing only
limiting interaction to being with a specific individual at the ROS
limiting interaction to a specific email address or telephone number
offering a restricted time slot for necessary calls to specified dates and times
placing limits on the number and duration of contacts with staff over a week or month
placing correspondence on file without a further response if the issue raised has previously been considered and responded to
blocking the individual from our social media accounts
in extreme cases, blocking the individual’s email or phone number
declining to consider any further contact, except in exceptional circumstances
or limiting communication in other ways which we consider appropriate in the circumstances, in line with this policy
Where the customer tries to reopen an issue that has already been considered through the charity’s complaints procedures, they will be informed in writing that the procedure has been exhausted and that the matter is now closed. Information about recourse to the Charity Commission, our regulator, is included below.
Before we take this action, we will offer the individual a chance to continue the communication in a reasonable way. If we decide that we do need to take this action, we will write to the individual, explaining:
why we consider their behaviour to be unreasonable
what we are doing about it, and if there is a time limit on the restrictions
We will record what action we have taken.
Review
We will regularly review any decision to restrict communications and when appropriate we may lift some or all restrictions.
Decisions to impose restrictions can be appealed in writing to the Chief Executive.
How we will take account of our duties under the Equality Act 2010
We make sure that we meet the requirements of the Equality Act 2010. This includes making sure we consider adjustments for people with protected characteristics.
Some people may have difficulty expressing themselves or communicating clearly and/or appropriately. We will always consider the needs and circumstances that we have been made aware of, before deciding how best to manage the situation. This will include making reasonable adjustments. However, this does not mean we will tolerate abusive language, shouting, or other unacceptable behaviour or actions.
If an individual with a protected characteristic becomes the subject of a restriction under this policy, we will consider whether the restriction may affect them more than someone without that characteristic. If this is the case, we may make different arrangements so they can still access the service.
If we become aware, for example from a close family member, that correspondence with the ROS is having a detrimental effect on a person’s physical or mental health, we will consider whether we ought to cease contact on that issue, or more generally, until we are informed that the situation has changed. This will be particularly important where the person has a disability.
Safeguarding and disclosures
If, in the course of our communications, an individual threatens to harm themselves or others, we will consider disclosing this to a relevant health professional. We may also contact the police if others are threatened with harm.
Escalating a communications issue to a formal complaint We will try to resolve all issues with people who communicate with us. If you feel that our communications have not been appropriate or affective, our Complaints Policy and Procedure provides guidance on how to escalate the issue. We’re also regulated by the Charity Commission, who have their own processes for handling complaints about charities.
Annex 1: Aggressive or abusive behaviour
This is behaviour or language (written or spoken) that could cause our staff to feel afraid, threatened or abused. This includes threatening emails, telephone calls, meetings, and comments on social media or elsewhere.
Examples are:
insulting or degrading language, including inappropriate banter, innuendo or malicious allegations
any form of physical violence or threats of physical violence
derogatory racist, sexist, ageist, or homophobic remarks
comments relating to disability, perceived gender, religion, belief, or any other personal characteristic
As noted earlier in this policy, we aim to warn individuals if we plan to take action to limit their interactions with the ROS. However, in extreme cases, we will not do this – for example, to protect our staff if a physical threat is made.
Where circumstances are serious enough to warrant further restrictions, we may take legal action.
