Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to investigate a complaint that a councillor breached the code of conduct and carried out criminal actions. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint about the breach of the code as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Allegations of crimes are for the police.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council is corrupt. He wants it held accountable for crimes he alleges have been committed. He also wants the Council’s monitoring officer to act against councillors whom he says have behaved in an unacceptable way.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate allegations of criminal activity such as corruption. This is a matter for the police.
4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint

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

5. 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

6. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I also considered Mr X’s comments on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X says he has spent more than 2 years trying to shut down a farm which is the site of animal cruelty and illegal actions. He says he has been passing information about the farm to the Council, but it has been blocking all his attempts to bring those involved to justice.
8. The monitoring officer has advised Mr X that he cannot consider complaints about alleged animal cruelty, disposal of dangerous waste and breaches of planning legislation and planning enforcement at the farm concerned.
9. This is because:
• Allegations of animal cruelty are matters for the police
• Allegations of commercial disposal of dangerous waste are for the Environment Agency; and
• Breaches of planning legislation and planning enforcement at the farm resulted in a prosecution which was cut short by the death of the defendant.
10. The Council has considered Mr X’s remaining concerns about the conduct of a councillor under its arrangements for dealing with complaints about councillors.
11. The procedure states the Monitoring Officer will consider all complaints. To be considered the complaint must:
• Be about a councillor acting in his/her capacity as a councillor
• Be about a councillor in office when the incident took place
• Not be about a trivial or minor matter
• Not be vexatious or malicious
• Not be about a trivial matter
• Be in the public interest
12. The Council’s Monitoring Officer confirms he considered the information provided by Mr X in his complaint. He also says his discussed Mr X’s concerns within him for more than 2 hours over the telephone.
13. The Monitoring Officer decided that having full knowledge of the complaint and a detailed knowledge of background to the planning enforcement proceedings, the complainant was vexatious. Therefore, according to the Council’s procedures he made the decision not to consider the complaint about the Councillors actions any further.

Assessment

14. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s complaint followed its councillor complaints procedure before deciding the councillor had not breached the code of conduct. This is the correct procedure and the Council is entitled to make this decision. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong because the complainant disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
15. Mr X says the monitoring officer should investigate his complaint as the alleged criminal acts are also breaches of the code of conduct. And if the monitoring officer fails to investigate then the Ombudsman should investigate and prosecute the monitoring officer.
16. However, the Ombudsman does not offer a right of appeal against a council’s decision on member conduct complaints. We can consider if there was fault in the way the Council considered the complaint. As noted above, we have not seen any evidence the Council has failed to follow the correct procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will not and cannot investigate this complaint. I have not seen any evidence of fault the way the Council considered Mr X’s complaint that a councillor has breached the code of conduct. We cannot consider allegations of criminal activity as these are matters for the police.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman