Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of his complaints about a councillor. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaints about a councillor. He says it did not take his disabilities into account when dealing with him and that he wants to see the councillor removed from their post.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. 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.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B complained to the Council about the actions of a councillor. The Council’s Monitoring Officer spoke to the Independent Person and decided that Mr B’s complaint did not fall under the Elected Code of Conduct and so would not be pursued.
5. The Monitoring Officer explained the reason for this decision was that the actions Mr B had complained about were taken by the councillor as a private individual and not as a councillor.
6. Mr B also complained that the councillor was incompetent, being uncertain and therefore indecisive. The Council explained to him that these were not matters of “misconduct” and so not matters which would be considered under the Code of Conduct.
7. In response to Mr B’s claim that the Monitoring Officer had ignored his disabilities, the Officer explained this had not been the case and that he had telephoned Mr B to check he had understood the decision made on his complaint.

Assessment

8. I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr B’s complaint about the councillor. It properly considered his complaint and explained its decision.
9. I have seen no evidence to suggest Mr B’s disabilities were ignored and note the Monitoring Officer telephoned Mr B to explain the decision when this is not something he would normally do.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman