Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly investigate his complaint about a parish councillor’s conduct at a meeting. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action over his complaint about the actions of a parish councillor. He says that the Council should fully investigate the actions of the parish council and its members who have caused distress to him and his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as parish councils. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint and he has been given an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says a parish councillor failed to declare a pecuniary interest in a planning meeting held by the parish council. He complained about this and says he has been subject to harassment by the parish council and its members as a result. The councillor declared an interest in the meeting which discussed an application for a neighbouring property, but he did not leave the room even though he did not take part in the meeting.
6. The councillor was advised by the parish clerk not to take part in the discussion, but she did not advise him to leave the room because she did not consider his interest to be a pecuniary one. The parish council is not the planning authority in this case. Mr X complained to the District Council which did consider the interest to be pecuniary and consequently it referred the matter to the Police, which is a requirement of the Localism Act 2011. The Police later decided that it was not a criminal matter which it would pursue.
7. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in these matters is limited to considering the actions of the District Council in investigating the complaint about the parish council. However, we cannot investigate parish councils or councillors themselves. We cannot investigate complaints about non-declaration of pecuniary interests by councillors. This is because they are criminal matters and the Monitoring Officer correctly referred the matter to the Police.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman