Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a councillor breached the code of conduct. We have not seen evidence of fault leading to Mr X suffering a significant personal injustice which requires our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his complaint that a councillor breached the code of conduct. He says officers:
• Asked for information which he had already provided
• Made inappropriate comments suggesting pre-determination
• Incorrectly stated he had provided new information to the sub-committee which considered the review of his complaint

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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

3. 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

4. | considered:
• the information provided by Mr X
• information provided by the Council including its responses to Mr X’s complaint
• the Council’s arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council that a councillor had breached the code of conduct by failing to respond to his enquiries.
6. The officer who received the complaint asked Mr X to identify which specific paragraph of the code of conduct he believed the councillor had breached. The same officer sent the complaint to the Monitoring Officer saying: “Can you have a look at this complaint please. After reading I don’t think it is an issue (but then what do I know)”
7. Mr X repeated the statement in his original complaint that he considered the councillor had shown a “distinct lack of accountability and leadership”.
8. The Monitoring Officer considered the complaint. He noted the councillor responded to the email Mr X sent chasing a reply to his original email from 7 days earlier. The officer considered the 7- day timescale was not unreasonable and decided not to take further action on Mr X’s complaint. He referred the matter to the Council’s Independent Person who agreed with his view. A decision letter was sent to Mr X. This advised him of his right to appeal.
9. Mr X appealed against the decision.
10. The local assessment sub-committee considered the appeal. It decided that while a failure to respond to Mr X’s emails was discourteous, it did not amount to a breach of the code.

Assessment

11. The Ombudsman does not offer a right of appeal against a council’s decision on member conduct complaints, but we can consider if there was fault in the way the council considered the complaint. We will only investigate complaints if there is sufficient injustice to warrant our involvement
12. Mr X says the officer who received his complaint had shown predetermination. I disagree. The receiving officer was expressing an opinion when forwarding the complaint to the Monitoring Officer. It is the Monitor Officer or their representative who makes the decision, not the receiving officer, therefore I do not consider the outcome of the complaint was pre-determined.
13. Mr X also says the Council has not considered the Councillor’s failure to answer his specific questions posed in his email chasing a response. These questions related to a report Mr X made to the Council about flooding. He also asked why it was necessary for him to chase the Councillor for a response.
14. The Councillor responded to Mr X seven days after he chased a response. He told Mr X he had forwarded his original email to the Chief Flood Engineer for a response.
15. I understand Mr X believes the Council asking for information he had already provided and referring to him providing additional information at assessment stage when he had not, is evidence that the Council has failed to take his complaint seriously.
16. However, while there may have been minor misunderstanding as to when information was provided, the Council has followed its published procedure for dealing with complaints about Councillors. Therefore, I cannot question its decision that the Councillor has not breached the code of conduct.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will not investigate this complaint. I have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s actions leading to him suffering a significant personal injustice which requires an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman