Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his complaint about the conduct of councillors at a community group meeting. The Council has not caused Mr X an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has not upheld his complaint against three councillors who he says were rude and accused people of being political when they attended his community group’s meeting. Mr X says the Council has failed to properly consider all the evidence. He says he was upset and the councillors should have respect for volunteers.

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 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 we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s information, comments and discussed the complaint with him by telephone. The Council has provided a copy of Mr X’s complaint and its decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Late in 2019 Mr X complained to the Council about what had happened at the meeting. He says a councillor was rude to him about an email Mr X had sent. The councillor said the meeting was political and had words with another councillor (about previous decisions affecting bins). Mr X tells me the councillors left the meeting after ten minutes and the meeting continued. He says he is concerned about the viability of the group if it loses Council support.
5. Mr X has provided an email, dated 29 January 2020, from councillor Y who attended the meeting and described what happened. The email says there was an exchange between her and one of the councillors complained of about the policy of the previous administration. Both accused each other of being inappropriately political. Councillor Y says the other councillor had spoken in an ‘abrupt’ manner. He was childish and aggressive and acted in a way which was ‘uncomfortable to attendees’. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider councillor Y’s evidence.
6. The Council has dealt with this as a standards complaint and considered the requirement in the councillor code of conduct that a councillor treats other people with ‘respect and courtesy’. The councillors told the Council that they felt the meeting was being used for political point scoring and they do not believe they were rude. The Council’s panel decided there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a breach of the code having regard to no specific inappropriate language being quoted.

Analysis

7. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
8. The Ombudsman investigates administrative fault causing injustice. There is insufficient injustice to investigate. The Council’s decision not to proceed further with a conduct complaint does not cause Mr X or his group an injustice. The councillors left the meeting after a short time and it continued after they had left. Mr X was the chair of the meeting and could be expected, in that capacity, to cope with disagreements between participants.
9. Mr X’s concern about the future of the community group is not a councillor conduct complaint. It was not part of the complaint he made to the Council or to this office. This complaint is only about lack of courtesy/alleged rudeness.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s handling of his complaint about the conduct of councillors at a community group meeting. The Council has not caused Mr X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman