Summary: Ms X complains the Council had failed to act after it decided a councillor had breached the code of conduct. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with her complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council refuses to act against a councillor after it decided he breached the code of conduct. She wants:
• An explanation why the councillor ignored her requests for help
• Support from a councillor in the matter she says she raised with the Council a year ago and;
• A donation to a charity of her choice in recognition of the time, effort and stress she has suffered

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Ms X, including the Council’s response to her complaint. And the Council’s procedure for considering complaints that members have breached the code of conduct.
4. Ms X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. 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.
6. Derbyshire County Council has a Code of Member Conduct and a procedure for considering complaints that members have breached the code of conduct (the procedure).
7. The procedure says

“The Monitoring Officer, in consultation with an Independent Person (other than one consulted by the subject member under paragraph 2 (b)), decides, within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint, that;

(a) The complaint does not come within the remit of the Code of Conduct.

(b) The complaint is not sufficiently serious to warrant an investigation

(c) That it is not in the public interest to investigate the complaint.

(d) He should seek to resolve the complaint without the need for an investigation (e.g. by way of an apology or training by the subject member).

(e) The complaint should not be investigated because it is vexatious, malicious or obsessive.

(f) The complaint should not be investigated because it is broadly similar to a complaint against the same member about the same alleged incident.

(g) The complaint should not be investigated because there is a clear ulterior/political motive for it, or it is just a tit for tat complaint

(h) An investigation should take place”

Before coming to his decision under paragraph 3 the Monitoring Officer may request further information and/or clarification from the complainant and/or the subject member and the time period shall be extended accordingly.

8. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider the actions of councillors where they are, as in this case, acting as ward councillors and not as representatives of the Council. Therefore, we cannot investigate Ms X’s complaints about the councillor’s failure to respond to her. We can consider how the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint about a potential breach of the code of conduct. But if the Council has properly considered the issue, we cannot question the merits of its final decision.

What happened

9. Ms X complained to the Council that a councilor had failed to respond to many requests for help.
10. The Monitoring officer consider the complaint and says he sought the opinion of the Council’s Independent Person. He decided by not responding to her emails the Councillor had breached the code of conduct.

In response to the officer’s enquiries the councillor confirmed Ms X had sent his several emails and that he had not responded. He said he realises this must have been frustrating and asked the officer to pass on his sincerest apologies for is oversight.

11. The officer relayed the apology from the councilor and told Ms X he had decided to uphold her complaint by resolving the complaint without the need for an investigation. This is in accordance with the Council’s procedure.

Assessment

12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and the Council’s decision is final. As it considered Ms X’s complaint according to its procedure for considering complaints that members have breached the code of conduct, we cannot question the merits of its final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint as there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her complaint.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman