London Borough of Tower Hamlets (19 003 446)

Category : Other Categories > Councillor conduct and standards

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 12 Nov 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate his code of conduct complaints. The Council correctly followed its procedure to decide not to investigate his complaints in detail. It considered evidence from Mr X, the chairman of the committee and officers, consulted with the Independent Person and explained why it would not investigate further.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council failed to investigate his code of conduct complaint about the action of the chairman of its strategic planning committee to remove him from two meetings. He says its failure to do so shows its complaint system is not fit for purpose causing him and others injustice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and evidence he provided.
  2. I asked the Council questions and considered its response, its Code of Conduct and Member Standards complaint procedure.
  3. I gave the Council and Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Member Standards complaints

  1. The Localism Act 2011 says councils must have a Code of Conduct for elected Councillors. They must also have a process in place to consider allegations that a Councillor has not complied with the Code. This must involve an Independent Person in decisions over whether or not to investigate complaints.
  2. This Council’s constitution sets out arrangements for dealing with complaints of a breach of the code of conduct. The Monitoring Officer first has to decide, within ten working days, whether the complaint merits formal investigation or to attempt informal resolution.
  3. The Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Independent Person, can decide not to investigate a complaint in certain circumstances. These include where:
    • The allegation doesn’t demonstrate any potential breach.
    • The allegation is not considered sufficiently serious to merit the cost to the public of carrying out an investigation.
  4. If the Monitoring Officer decides, having consulted the Independent Person, not to investigate the complaint they write to the complainant giving the reasons for rejection.
  5. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the way the council considered the complaint. In this case this means considering whether the Monitoring Officer investigated the complaint in accordance with the Council’s policy. We can consider whether there were avoidable delays, whether the investigation failed to take account of relevant information or did not follow the Council’s procedures. The Ombudsman can only consider the actions of the councillor if we find fault in the Council’s investigation.

What happened

  1. Mr X attended a council planning meeting in July 2018. The meeting was to discuss a planning application he had concerns about. He had taken part in an earlier debate about the issue in February.
  2. He was asked to leave the meeting by its chairman. Mr X says he was not disruptive, and the meeting had not properly allowed for public access about this issue of serious local concern.
  3. Mr X attended a second council planning meeting in September 2018, following deferment of issues from July. He was asked to leave the meeting before it started by the chairman.
  4. He complained to the Council about this in September, referring to what had happened at both meetings. He raised concerns about the conduct of the chairman on both occasions. He said the chairman:
    • Had no reason to remove him from the July meeting as he had not been disruptive.
    • Had unfairly excluded him from the September meting which he had a right to attend.
  5. The Council replied in October, confirming it would consult with the Independent Person before deciding whether to investigate. Once the Council had Mr X’s permission to share his correspondence with the Mayor with the Chairman it began its investigation in November 2018.
  6. The Monitoring Officer asked the chairman and Council committee officers for their recollection of events. They also consulted with the Independent Person, setting out how they proposed to respond to the complaint.
  7. The Council replied in December 2018. The Monitoring Officer said, having consulted the Independent Person, it had decided the complaint did not merit formal investigation. They explained this was because:
    • At the July meeting the chairman had explained ground rules for debate. Two places had been allocated for speakers opposing the application. Both had been allocated before Mr X asked to speak. The chairman had nevertheless allowed Mr X to also speak on behalf of objectors.
    • Evidence from Council officers present was that after he had done so Mr X continued to interrupt from the public gallery before being asked to leave by the chairman.
    • At the September meeting he had arrived before the meeting. He had not been entitled to speak at the meeting as an objector. There had been an argument and raised voices. He had been asked to leave.
    • The Monitoring Officer said that, as learning from the incident, some members of the public may have been discouraged from speaking at the September meeting. They would discuss this with the chairman and members of the political group to avoid future repetition.
  8. The Council referred Mr X to the Ombudsman. Mr X told us he has concerns the Council is operating a flawed complaints process and its investigation of his complaint was inadequate. He said there was no record in the Council’s minutes of disruptive behaviour at the meetings. It had not spoken to independent witnesses about what had happened.

My findings

  1. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body for member standards complaints. Our role is to check whether councils follow the correct procedure to decide whether or not they should investigate such complaints in detail.
  2. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint in line with the procedure set out in its constitution. It appropriately considered the information provided by Mr X. It made enquiries of the chairman and notes made by the chairman and committee officers at the meetings in question.
  3. The Council decided, having had regard to this evidence, it was not enough to support the allegation the chairman had breached the Code of Conduct. It decided not to start a formal investigation. It did so having consulted appropriately with the Independent Person. It identified learning from the September meeting and has provided evidence it discussed this with elected members as it agreed to.
  4. As there is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision not to investigate, I cannot question that decision or investigate the councillor’s alleged actions.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings