Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to complaints made against a councillor. This is because complaints about past events from 2016 are late and so fall outside our jurisdiction and, with regard to more recent matters, an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to the outcome Mr B seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council was at fault for investigating a complaint against a councillor which the Council attributed to him but which he says he did not make. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint about this and about complaints he made concerning events from 2016.

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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. In February 2018 Mr B emailed various bodies with allegations of wrongdoing by a councillor with whom he has a long history of dispute and animosity. He followed up on his initial email which stated the councillor should be investigated with a further email two days later. He added some further information and included in the second email the Council’s Chief Executive as an addressee.
6. Given the nature of the allegations, and the timing of them close to local elections, the Council decided the matter should be dealt with in the same way as if Mr B had made a complaint under its Code of Conduct for Councillors. It says that its view was that by following this procedure it would ensure the matter was dealt with openly and transparently.
7. The Council investigated the complaint and sent Mr B a draft copy of its findings in June 2018. The day after receiving it, Mr B emailed the author of the report to say that he did not know what communication from him had led to the investigation and that he did not want his name used “in relation to your own investigations with third parties” concerning the councillor.
8. During this time Mr B had concerns that the councillor, who had issued legal proceedings against Mr B on a private basis, intended to use the report to support his case against Mr B. However, the councillor withdrew his court case so no finding was made on his allegations against Mr B.
9. The Council issued its full report in August 2018. It found no breach of the Code of Conduct and noted that the allegations that had been made against the councillor would be best left to the police. The Council sent a copy of the report to Mr B and the councillor.
10. Having received the report, Mr B submitted a complaint to the Council disputing that he had made the complaint which had led to the Council’s investigation. He received an acknowledgement but he did not receive a response.
11. Around this time Mr B also made a complaint about the councillor and a third party which related to events which had taken place in 2016. A couple of months later Mr B made a further complaint about the same councillor and a breach of the Code of Conduct. This again involved events from 2016.
12. The Council passed the latter complaint to an investigator independent of the Council. The investigator concluded that two years on from the events complained about, it was now too late for the complaint to be addressed. The author of the report noted that Mr B could raise his concerns with the police himself if he wished.

Assessment

13. While I understand from Mr B that in February 2018 he did not intend to ask the Council to investigate the councillor, having read the two emails he sent at this time, the Council’s actions in treating them like a Code of Conduct complaint do not appear unreasonable. Mr B asked for the councillor to be investigated and he included the Council’s most senior officer as an addressee.
14. Mr B’s email sent in response to the draft report was not clearly worded. He could have checked his own email record to see the emails he had sent on the days in question and while he said he did not want his name used in reports relating to the councillor and third parties, the Council understood that it had received a complaint from him which it was to investigate.
15. The bad history between the councillor and Mr B is public knowledge and the Council’s report did not play a part in the court’s determination of the councillor’s legal case against Mr B because the councillor withdrew the case.
16. With regard to the two other complaints made to the Council by Mr B concerning events from 2016, the restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to them. While I note Mr B says he had reasons for delaying in making the late complaints, it is too late for the Ombudsman to consider these complaints now and there are no grounds which warrant exercising our discretion to do so.
17. I am aware there is a long and complex history involving Mr B and the councillor and that as an outcome to his complaint Mr B wants an investigation into the actions of the councillor. However, his allegations involve wrongdoing and corruption and as such these should be dealt with by the police.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because complaints about past events from 2016 are late and so fall outside our jurisdiction and, with regard to more recent matters, an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to the outcome Mr B seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman