Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly consider a code of conduct complaint against a Cabinet Member. This is because the personal injustice arising from the alleged fault in the complaint process is not significant enough to justify the Ombudsman’s continued involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, was the agent for a refused planning application, and says the Cabinet Member for Planning failed to reply to three letters asking questions about the determination of the application. Mr B complains that the Council has decided the councillor’s actions should not be investigated under the code of conduct complaint process. He says the Cabinet Member is unsuitable for an appointment to a public post, and has failed to fulfil his duties and responsibilities, contrary to the Localism Act 2011.

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’.
3. 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)
4. So, the Ombudsman does not offer a right of appeal against a council’s decision on complaints that a councillor has breached the code of conduct. But we can consider if there was fault in the way the monitoring officer or standards committee considered the complaint.
5. However, we must use public money carefully. So, we may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the alleged fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

6. Finally, we cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered:
• Mr B’s complaint to the Ombudsman, including the accompanying supporting documents;
• The Council’s ‘Procedures for the assessment and review of allegations of breaches of the members code of conduct’;
• Information about the planning application on the Council’s website;
• Mr B’s comments on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

8. With reference to paragraph 5 above, even if there was fault in the way the Council assessed the code of conduct complaint, the Ombudsman must also consider how this has impacted on Mr B.
9. As I see it, the substantive matter underlying this complaint is that the planning application was refused. But Mr B’s clients have already used their right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate to try to remedy this. So, for the avoidance of any doubt, and with reference to paragraph 6 above, we cannot consider any parts of the complaint about the way the Council determined the planning application or any injustice arising from the refusal.
10. Beyond that, I am not persuaded any residual injustice arising from the Council’s decision not to investigate the Member’s actions is so significant as to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing the matter. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that the Member was not involved in the determination of the planning application, and had no power to subsequently alter the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because the alleged fault by the Council has not caused Mr B a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman