Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not properly investigate or pursue an allegation that a Town Councillor had breached its Member Code of Conduct. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council regarding this matter.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint, and his comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of documents from the Council about its investigation of Mr X’s complaint concerning Councillor Y.

Back to top

What I found

4. Last year Mr X and Councillor Y began an exchange of messages on social media regarding a local issue Mr X was concerned about and which the Town Council was investigating.
5. Mr X had given Town Councillors a pack of information about the issue, and he subsequently approached Councillor Y asking for details of who the Town Council’s investigation report, and the information he had provided, was going to be sent to.
6. But during their exchange of messages relations between Mr X and Councillor Y broke down. This culminated in Councillor Y accusing Mr X of making threats against him, as a result of which he reported Mr X to the police. For his part Mr X accused Councillor Y of unreasonably withholding the information he had asked for and making a libelous post on social media about his alleged threats. Mr X also said Councillor Y had improperly disclosed confidential Town Council business to him.
7. Mr X then complained to the Council that Councillor Y had breached the Member Code of Conduct (‘the Code’).

Back to top

The Council’s complaints procedure

8. The Council has responsibility for dealing with standards complaints against its own members, and against members of the parish and town councils in its area.
9. The Council’s published arrangements on dealing with standards complaints say complaints are considered at first by its Monitoring Officer (MO), who decides if they should be rejected or progressed for further investigation or other action.
10. The Council’s guidance on dealing with complaints says the MO first carries out a preliminary assessment. If the MO decides the complaint needs further consideration it is referred to an Independent Assessment Meeting involving the MO and an appointed Independent Person. The MO, in consultation with the Independent Person, then decides if it appears the Code has been breached and what, if any, action should be taken. The MO may decide to take no further action, recommend an informal remedy or refer the case for a formal investigation.
11. Any formal investigation is carried out by an independent Investigating Officer who produces a report on the complaint. Based on the report the MO may still decide on taking no further action or an informal resolution. But where it appears there has been a breach, and it is considered in the public interest, the MO may then refer the case to a Hearing sub-committee comprising three members and an Independent Person. If the sub-committee decides the Code has been breached it can impose sanctions on the member in question
12. In Mr X’s case the MO decided on an Independent Assessment Meeting. As a result of this Meeting the MO concluded that Councillor Y had breached the Code by withholding information. She also noted he had used inappropriate language in his social media messages. But the MO concluded that a full investigation of the incident was not warranted and would not be in the public interest, and an informal remedy would be appropriate instead. In particular, Councillor Y should provide Mr X with the requested information and receive guidance on the use of social media.

Analysis

13. Mr X was dissatisfied with this outcome so he complained to the Ombudsman. But I have concluded that we do not have grounds to start an investigation of his complaint.
14. First, we have no jurisdiction to investigate the actions of town or parish councils or their members. So in a complaint about an alleged breach of a code of conduct by a town councillor, we can only look at the way the principal authority deals with the case. We cannot look at the substantive complaint about the councillor.
15. Second, 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. So we do not offer a right of appeal against a principal authority’s decision on a complaint about a town councillor’s conduct. We are only able only to review how a council deals with the complaint.
16. But having considered the documents provided in this case, I consider the Council correctly followed the procedure set out in its published arrangements for dealing with standards complaints.
17. I also consider that the MO’s Determination Notice refers to relevant points from the information presented about the complaint issues, and provides a reasoned explanation of the decision reached.
18. I note that the Council’s arrangements require that, in deciding what action to take on a complaint, the MO should balance the relative seriousness of the issue with the need to use public resources appropriately and the likely extent of public interest. So it seems to me that the arrangements give the MO significant discretion in deciding how to proceed with a complaint.
19. Mr X was unhappy the MO did not reach a view or make any recommendations about his complaint regarding Councillor Y’s accusation that he had made threats. But it is evident the MO had taken note of this issue, even if she did not refer to it in her decision. In the circumstances I consider this was a matter of judgement for the MO rather than a fault in the decision-making process.
20. I have concluded that the Council’s decision on Mr X’s complaint was within the range of decisions it was reasonably entitled to take, based on the information provided, and there is no sign of fault in the way it was made. As a result I also do not see we could justifiably suggest the Council should necessarily have made a different decision or pursued Mr X’s complaint any further than it did. Therefore I am not convinced we have grounds to investigate any matters in his case.

Back to top

Final decision

21. The Ombudsman has no reason to investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not properly consider his complaint that a Town Councillor had breached its Member Code of Conduct. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council regarding this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman