Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council deciding not to pursue his conduct complaint regarding a local Parish Councillor. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault, and the matter does not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice which would justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has made the wrong decision by rejecting his complaint about the conduct of a local parish councillor towards other councillors. Mr X considers Councillor A has breached the Councillor’s Code of Conduct (‘the Code’) by not valuing colleagues and engaging with them in an appropriate manner, and not treating people with respect, including those he works alongside.
2. Mr X wants the Council to find Councillor A in breach of the Code.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X says that in 2017, Councillor A accused Councillor B of assault at a Parish Council meeting. The police investigated the allegation. Councillor B was not charged with assault. Councillor A was charged and convicted of wasting police time, and fined. Mr X says this incident demonstrated Councillor A breached the sections of the Code in paragraph 1 above.
7. The assault issue was for the police and courts and has now been resolved. There is no role for the Ombudsman in that matter.
8. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Councillor A’s behaviour and apply the Code. That was the role of the Council. The only issue the Ombudsman can consider is the process the Council followed when reaching its decision on Mr X’s conduct complaint about Councillor A.
9. To criticise a council’s decision, the Ombudsman would need evidence to show the process the council followed was so flawed that it affected the decision reached. I consider it unlikely there will be evidence which demonstrates there was Council fault in the way it investigated and made its decision on Mr X’s conduct complaint.
10. I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision on his conduct complaint. But it is not fault for a council to make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Even if there has been fault in the way the Council investigated Mr X’s conduct complaint, its decision to not investigate further does not in my view cause Mr X a significant personal injustice. It is not a personal injustice to Mr X that Councillor A may not receive further sanction.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s complaint about Councillor A’s conduct; and
• the matter does not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice which would warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman