Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as he is unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered his complaint about the conduct of a town councillor.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains a town councillor breached the Council’s code of conduct. He says the councillor spoke at a meeting of the local chamber of commerce in 2018 in support of a planning application for 40 holiday caravans.
2. He says a Council officer repeated the councillor’s comments at a planning meeting in 2019. The Planning Inspector noted the support of the chamber of commerce when the Council’s refusal of the application was appealed. The appeal was dismissed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

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

4. 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

5. I considered the information provided by Mr X and discussed his concerns with him. He had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

What I found

6. Mr X complained to the Council that a town councillor had breached the code of conduct. He says he spoke supporting a planning application for 40 holiday caravans at a meeting of the chamber of commerce. He said the councillor had a conflict of interest as he was representing the applicant. Mr X says a planning officer repeated the comments at a planning committee meeting. He also says the Planning Inspector noted the support of the Chamber of Commerce when the decision to refuse the application was appealed.
7. The Council’s code of conduct says:

“The code applies whenever a member is acting in their capacity as a member, a representative of the council or when they claim to act or give the impression of acting as a member or representative of the council. It does not seek to regulate what members do in their purely private and personal lives, unless such conduct brings the council into disrepute.”

8. The Council’s monitoring officer considered Mr X’s complaint. He decided the councillor was speaking as a member of the Chamber of Commerce rather that as a councillor. Therefore, the code of conduct was not engaged. Mr X’s complaint would not be considered further.

Assessment

9. The Council’s procedure for dealing with code of conduct complaints says:

“The monitoring officer will review the complaint and decide whether it should be rejected, merits further consideration, or another course of action.”

10. The Monitoring Officer has followed 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.
11. Also, while I understand Mr X has found the process worrying, I do not consider that he has suffered any significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint. I have not seen any evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint. Nor do I consider that he has suffered any significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman