Summary: Mr X complained the Council should investigate a Parish Councillor who failed to disclose a pecuniary interest at a Council meeting. I have discontinued my investigation. This is because the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints which concern events that took place in a Parish Council as this is outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not investigate a Councillor, who he believes breached the Parish Council’s Code of Conduct by failing to reveal he had a pecuniary interest before participating in a Council meeting.
2. Mr X said the Council’s failure to take action about this allowed the Councillor to vote on a matter that had a detrimental effect on him.
   He said this caused him stress and upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The Courts have said that we cannot investigate a complaint about any action by a council, concerning a matter which is itself out of our jurisdiction. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin)
5. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I contacted Mr X and discussed his view of the complaint.
7. I reviewed the correspondence shared between Mr X and the Council.
8. I wrote to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What happened

9. Mr X complained to the Council because he believed a Parish Councillor should have disclosed a pecuniary interest before participating in a meeting. Mr X said the Councillor voted on a matter that had negative implications for him and alleged the Councillor did so because of a dispute they had, which had taken place some years earlier.
10. The Monitoring Officer (MO) did not uphold Mr X’s complaint, stating there was no evidence to indicate the Councillor had a pecuniary interest.
11. Mr X was unhappy with this response and stated MO had failed to accommodate his disability by failing to allow him to provide evidence in person.
12. When this was put to the Council, it did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
    It said it had given Mr X the opportunity to provide evidence and decided it was not necessary to request further information from Mr X or meet with him in person.
13. Mr X was unhappy with this decision and complained to us.

My findings

14. Complaints about breaches of disclosable pecuniary interest provisions under Section 34 of the Local Government 1974 Act are criminal matters which may be investigated by the police.
15. Mr X has not provided evidence of the pecuniary interest he has complained about and I cannot comment on the validity of the statements he has made. In any event, if Mr X wishes for this evidence to be considered, he should refer this aspect of his complaint to the police.
16. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of parish councillors as they are not within our jurisdiction.
17. Mr X complained he feels the Council discriminated against him by not taking his disability into account and allowing him to provide evidence in person. The courts have said we cannot investigate a complaint about any action by a council, concerning a matter which is itself outside of our jurisdiction. If Mr X wishes, he can refer this aspect of his complaint to the equality and human rights commission.
18. Ultimately, the Ombudsman is unlikely to provide a different outcome for Mr X, as the majority of his complaint is not within our remit.

Back to top

Final decision

19. Mr X’s complaint concerns the conduct of a Parish Councillor, which is out of our jurisdiction. I therefore discontinued my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman