Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint that the Council did not properly investigate a complaint that a Councillor had breached its Code of Conduct for Members. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council which has caused an injustice to warrant our involvement.

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 an investigation if, for example, 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint, and his comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also considered the Council’s Code of Conduct for Members (‘the Code of Conduct’) and its procedures for dealing with complaints about Councillors.

Back to top

What I found

4. Y’s social media Group for the community in the area is a closed Group. This means that Y acts as moderator regarding membership and use of the Group.
5. Mr X complained to the Council after Y removed him from the Group. Mr X also complained that other Ward Councillors had been blocked from using it. Mr X said Y was misusing the Group to exclude political views they did not agree with and that, therefore, the Group did not reflect the interests of all the local community as its title suggested. Mr X complained that this was a breach of the Code of Conduct.
6. The Council’s Deputy Monitoring Officer (‘DMO’) responded to Mr X’s complaint. But the DMO found that Y had not breached the Code of Conduct and no further action should be taken. In particular, the DMO found that the Group was not politically motivated and did not promote Y’s position as a Councillor and, in the circumstances, they were entitled to arbitrate on its membership.

Analysis

7. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because a complainant disagrees with it. Our role is to consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached, and whether any fault affected the outcome.
8. The Council’s procedures for dealing with complaints about Councillors say that complaints are first considered by the DMO, who will notify the Councillor concerned and invite their comments. The procedures say that where the DMO considers it appropriate the complaint will be presented to the Council’s Standards Sub-Committee for a decision about whether there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct.
9. I understand the DMO considered the information Mr X provided, and Y’s comments in response, and consulted with the independent member of the Standards Sub-Committee. But the DMO decided there was no breach of the Code of Conduct and it was not appropriate to refer matters to the Sub-Committee.
10. From the information provided, I consider the DMO followed an appropriate process in dealing with Mr X’s complaint. I also consider the DMO’s decision letter gave suitable consideration to the issues in the complaint and provides a reasoned explanation of the decision reached.
11. In the circumstances I do not see there is sign of fault in the DMO’s investigation, or that the DMO should necessarily have referred the case for further consideration by the Standards Sub-Committee.
12. Where we receive a complaint about an alleged breach of a Member’s Code of Conduct, we normally cannot look into the conduct of the Councillor which led to the complaint unless the Councillor was acting on behalf of the Council in connection with an administrative function. Where the conduct itself is outside our jurisdiction we can only look at how the Council handles the complaint about the issue.
13. But I am not convinced Y’s conduct in this case was on behalf of the Council or in connection with one of its administrative functions.
14. However, even if we could look into Y’s actions, I suggest it is very unlikely we would find fault in that respect which had caused Mr X a personal injustice to warrant our intervention.
15. In particular, one of Mr X’s concerns was that the current and former Councillors in the Ward and other local residents were being unfairly blocked from participating in the Group. But I do not see this causes Mr X any significant injustice himself.
16. In addition I am not convinced that Mr X has been substantively disadvantaged by his own exclusion from the Group.
17. In particular, I understand Mr X main concern is to be able to raise issues about the state of the roads, pavements and hedges in the local area. But even if Mr X is prevented from raising his concerns through the Group I suggest there are other effective ways for him to pursue his issues, for instance, by using other local social media platforms, complaining directly to the Council, or making representations to another of his Ward Councillors.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not properly considered his complaint that a Councillor had breached the Code of Conduct. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council which has caused Mr X an injustice to warrant our intervention.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman