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 Members’ Code of Conduct. This is because there is no sign that any fault by the Council has caused the complainant an injustice to warrant our involvement, and it is unlikely we could achieve a different outcome for her.

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, or
• it is unlikely an 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. I considered the information Miss B provided with her complaint, the comments she made when we spoke on the telephone, and her further comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also took into account documents supplied by the Council concerning its investigation of Miss B’s complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. A business next door to Miss B’s home put in a planning application to extend their premises.
5. Miss B objected to the planning proposal and she approached Councillor X, one of her Ward Councillors, about this matter. Miss B wanted Councillor X to refer the application to the Council’s Planning Committee for a decision.
6. However Councillor X did not refer the application to Committee. Instead planning officers dealt with the case under delegated authority and decided to grant planning consent.
7. Miss B was unhappy about the way Councillor X responded to her request and concerns. In particular Miss B said the Councillor had been dishonest, had not followed due process, and had failed to respond to her contacts. Miss B felt that if Councillor X had acted properly the planning application would have been considered by the Planning Committee and a different decision could well have resulted.
8. Miss B complained to the Council that Councillor X’s behaviour amounted to a breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct (‘the Code’).
9. The Council’s Deputy Monitoring Officer (‘DMO’) considered Miss B’s complaint. But the DMO found there was no evidence Councillor X had breached the Code and no further action would be taken.
10. In making this decision the DMO noted that Councillor X may have been somewhat evasive in response to Miss B’s contacts, but also took account of the limits on her ability to assist because she was a member of the Planning Committee.

Analysis

11. 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.
12. The Council’s Complaints Process for dealing with complaints about Members’ conduct says that complaints are first considered by the Monitoring Officer (MO), who will notify the Councillor in question and invite their comments.
13. If it appears there is a prima facie case of a breach the MO will consult a designated Independent Person before reaching a decision. A formal investigation will only be carried out if the MO and Independent Person consider it is possible there has been a significant breach of the Code.
14. The evidence I have seen indicates that the DMO, acting on behalf of the MO, considered the information Miss B provided and Councillor X’s comments in response. The DMO also consulted with the Independent Person before they reached a joint decision.
15. I also suggest that the DMO’s decision notice gives suitable consideration to the issues in the complaint and provides a reasoned explanation of the decision reached.
16. In the circumstances I see no sign of fault in the process the Council followed in deciding Miss B’s complaint and, as a result, I am not convinced we have grounds to question the merits of that decision.
17. I also note that referring a planning application to Committee is entirely at the discretion of the Ward Councillors for the area where the planning site is located. Councillor X evidently did not agree to refer the application to Committee in this case, as Miss B had requested. But there was no obligation on Councillor X to make a referral. Furthermore there seems no suggestion she gave any indication to Miss B that she would do so.
18. In the event Miss B was also still able to make her objections to the planning application known to the planning case officer before a decision was made.
19. Miss B clearly feels that decision might well have been different if it had been made by the Planning Committee instead of by officers. But I do not see we can necessarily assume the outcome would have been different given that officers and the Committee were both required to decide matters based on the relevant planning considerations.
20. In addition, even if we were to conclude the Council should have pursued the issue of Councillor X’s conduct, I do not see that any further investigation it carried out or sanction it could impose would have made any difference to the planning decision. In the circumstances I am not convinced we could say that any fault by the Council in this respect had caused Miss B a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

21. The Ombudsman is not justified in starting an investigation of Miss B’s complaint that the Council had not properly considered her complaint that a Councillor had breached its Members’ Code of Conduct. This is because there is no sign that any fault by the Council caused Miss B an injustice to warrant our involvement, and we are unlikely to achieve a different outcome for her regarding this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman