Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters he raised concerning a councillor’s entry on the Members’ Register of Interests. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because Mr X has suffered no personal injustice and the police are better placed to investigate an allegation concerning the failure to disclose a pecuniary interest.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint concerning a councillor’s entry on the Members’ Register of Interests which related to the councillor’s employer.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr X and reviewed the information he and the Council provided.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X submitted a conduct complaint form relating to a councillor’s lack of clarity about who his employer was and a claim that the councillor had printed a template letter in support of a planning application in which there was the possibility of a link to his employer.
5. The Monitoring Officer (MO) consulted with the Independent Person but concluded the complaint did not merit investigation. The MO explained to Mr X the information a councillor was obliged to provide on the Register and that this did not cover the employer’s source of funding or sponsorship. The MO advised that the councillor had said his employer was a not-for-profit organisation and that while not obliged to detail his employer’s sponsorship, he would do so, as far as he was able, for the sake of transparency. The MO said the councillor had been asked about the template letter and he denied writing it so he had been advised to report the matter to the police.
6. Subsequently, the councillor stopped working for the employer. Mr X had further queries for the MO about the councillor’s employment which the MO responded to by advising the councillor had been asked for the information and his response would be considered for disclosure.
7. The MO later wrote to Mr X to advise the councillor had now updated his entry to note he was not employed and that the complaint file had been closed following the earlier decision.

Assessment

8. The Ombudsman does not offer a right of appeal against a council’s decision on member conduct complaints and, while we can consider whether there was fault in the way the council considered the complaint, we will only investigate complaints if there is sufficient injustice to warrant our involvement.
9. In this case, Mr X has not been caused personal injustice sufficient to warrant investigation of the complaint. Moreover, complaints about breaches of the disclosable pecuniary interest provisions under s34 of the Localism Act 2011 are criminal matters which may be investigated by the police who are better placed to consider such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because Mr X has suffered no personal injustice and the police are better placed to investigate an allegation concerning the failure to disclose a pecuniary interest.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman