Summary: Mr X complains the Council refuses to investigate his complaint that two councillors breached the code of conduct. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. And it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr x complains the Council refuses to investigate his complaint that two councillors breached the code of conduct. Also, the Council failed to respond to his complaint within the specified timeframe. And the Deputy Monitoring Officer (DMO) failed to confirm whether he had consulted the Independent Person.

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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Mr X and discussed his complaint with him. I also considered information provided by the Council and on its website.
4. Mr X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council’s arrangements for dealing with complaints about the code of conduct for member state:

“The Monitoring Officer will review the complaint and, following consultation with the Independent Person take a decision (initial assessment) as to whether it merits investigation, or another course of action. This decision will normally be taken within 20 working days of receipt of a complaint.”

6. Mr X complained to the Council that two councillors (I shall refer to them as councillors A and B), had breached the code of conduct. He said they had referred to him as ‘a madman’ during a meeting which he did not attend. And that he considered this insulting and defamatory.
7. The Deputy Monitoring officer (DMO) confirms he listened to a recording of part of a meeting where the two councillors were present. He says he was advised that Councillor A stated the meeting was not to be recorded. But despite this instruction the meeting was recorded without the councillor’s knowledge.
8. The DMO says the Councillor A did not refer to Mr X as ‘a madman’. In his letter he states “words to the effect; who is that madman?” And councillor B mentioned Mr X’s name. The DMO concluded that the complaint against councillor A was not valid as he did not make the statement attributed to him by Mr X. The DMO decided councillor B did not breach the code as she speculated councillor A was referring to Mr X and responded accordingly.
9. The DMO wrote to Mr X confirming the above and stating that even if he had found the councillors’ actions were a breach of the code (which he did not) he considered the resources needed to pursue an investigation were disproportionate to the allegation made.

Assessment

10. The Ombudsman does not offer a right of appeal against a council’s decision on member conduct complaints, but we can consider if there was fault in the way the council considered the complaint. We will only investigate complaints if there is enough injustice to warrant our involvement.
11. I have listened to the recording provided by Mr X. I heard an unidentified male voice in the background asking, “what’s he called?” (pause) “the madman.” A female voice replies “Oh, Mr X”. Mr X says the DMO’s version of events is an attempt to cover up the truth and the words spoken are irrefutable. However, I do not find the statement made by the DMO detailed in paragraph 8 to be so different from the actual words spoken that they convey a different meaning. I do not intend to consider this point further.
12. The Council’s arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints say that the decision on the initial assessment will normally be made within 20 working days of receiving the complaint. In this case it was 32 days. The reasons given for the delay by the Council were that it involved two councillors and an audio recording. Also, there were two bank holidays and the DMO was on annual leave for a further four days during the period between the Council receiving Mr X’s complaint and coming to a decision. I do not consider the approximate 2-week delay beyond the normal response time to have caused any significant injustice and do not propose to consider this point any further.
13. In response to my enquiries the Council confirms the DMO consulted with the Independent Person before deciding not to investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is in line with its published policy.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because although I understand he strongly believes the councillors insulted and defamed him, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. And I have not found fault in the way the Council considered his complaint which has caused enough injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman