Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to uphold his complaint about the conduct of a local councillor. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s Monitoring Officer failing to pursue his complaint about a local councillor whom he says wrote a libellous letter about his character to the Office of the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X complained to the Council about a local councillor. He wrote a letter to the Information Commissioner in support of the parish council which is the subject of a complaint by Mr X. Mr X says the letter made allegations about him which are untrue and he feels this was defamatory and a breach of the Members Code of Conduct.
5. The Council’s Monitoring Officer who conducts investigations into complaints about councillors told Mr X he would not be taking the complaint further. This is because he considers the letter was a private letter and was not intended to be published or presented to the public. This was not a breach of the Members Code of Conduct and the Council had no authority to stop a councillor writing a private letter to a regulatory body.
6. Mr X says he is concerned that the councillor’s letter will prejudice the way in which the Information Commissioner may consider his own complaints about the parish council.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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.
8. In this case the Monitoring Officer concluded that writing a personal letter was not a breach of the Members Code. The Councillor was entitled to express his private opinion to anyone whom he chooses. It is a matter for the Information Commissioner to decide how much weight to attach to the correspondence it receives. There is no reason to believe this will not be treated in a professional and impartial manner.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman