Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a parish council standards matter because there is not enough evidence of fault causing unremedied injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, says the Council did not respond to his complaint within five working days. Mr B also complains the Council did not provide an explanation of its complaint response when he asked for it and did not explain if the Independent Person had been consulted.

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 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and invited him to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B complained to the Council on 16 December 2019 about the conduct of members of a Parish Council. The Council told Mr B his complaint did not meet the criteria for it to be reviewed via its standards complaints process and it would take no further action. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the conduct of parish councillors but may investigate the way in which the Council dealt with Mr B’s complaint.
6. Mr B says the Council did not follow its complaints process because it did not respond to his complaint within five working days. Mr B also says the Council did not explain if it consulted with the Independent Person and did not explain how it made its decision.
7. The Council sent an email to Mr B on 2 January 2020. It apologised for not responding within five working days and told Mr B his complaint did not meet the criteria to be taken through the standards complaints process. The Council sent another email to Mr B on 9 January explaining how it made its decision. It also provided comments made by the Independent Person when considering Mr B’s complaint.
8. Mr B says he felt uncertain and frustrated by the Council’s handling of his complaint and its initial response. The Council is at fault for not responding to Mr B’s complaint within five working days. However, the Council offered a remedy by responding and apologising to Mr B for the delay.
9. I note Mr B brought his complaint to the Ombudsman before the Council’s email of 9 January. However, the email explained the Council’s decision and provided the Independent Person’s comments to show how the complaint was considered. I consider the Council’s apology and the explanation of its decision was sufficient remedy for Mr B’s uncertainty and frustration.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman