Summary: Mr X complains the Council refuses to investigate his complaint that a parish councillor breached the code of conduct. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint. It is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. Nor to we consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refuses to consider his complaint that a parish councillor breached the code of conduct. He also complains the Council:

• was late in responding to him; and

• misinformed him about his right to ask the Ombudsman to consider his complaint.

2. He says the matter of which has caused him to suffer stress, sleeplessness and anxiety. And is preventing him from returning to the parish council to have the matter debated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X and discussed his complaint with him. He commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council that a parish councillor had breached the code of conduct. He said she had failed to declare an interest and taken part in a debate. He says her actions stifled debate.
6. The Council’s rules for dealing with code of conduct complaints says it will write to a complainant to confirm receipt of the complaint. The Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Independent Person, will decide either to
• Not refer the complaint for investigation
• Refer the complaint for investigation
• Apply the information resolution process either before or after an investigation
• Following investigation to refer the complaint to the Hearing Panel
• Take no action and close the matter
• Refer the complaint to the relevant political group leader for action
7. In this case the Monitoring Officer did not issue her final decision on Mr X’s complaint until 3 months after he made his complaint. This is fault, however the officer apologised for the delay. I do not propose further action on this point as there is no other remedy than an apology which the Ombudsman could reasonably seek.
8. She told Mr X that in considering his complaint she had reviewed:
• His complaint form
• The councillor’s register of interests
• The minutes of the parish council meeting
• The code of conduct in place at the time of the meeting
• The Localism Act 2011; and
• The views of the Independent Person
9. The Monitoring Officer concluded the councillor had a personal interest in the item which she declared. As it was a personal interest, she was entitled to take part in the debate. Therefore, there was no breach of the code.
10. The Monitoring Officer advised Mr X there is no right of appeal against her decision.

Assessment

11. As explained in paragraph 7 above, the delay in response is fault. But as Mr X received an apology, I do not intend to consider this point any further.
12. Having spoken to Mr X, I understand he disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s view that the Councillor had a personal interest. He believes the Councillor had a pecuniary interest and should have declared this and not taken part in the debate.
13. Under section 34 of the Localism Act 2011201, a failure to declare a pecuniary interest is a criminal offence. If Mr X believes the Monitoring Officer is wrong in her assessment that the councillor’s interest was a personal one, he can report the matter to the Police.
14. Mr X says the Council misinformed him by advising there is no right of appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decision. He says it should have told him that he can ask the Ombudsman to consider his complaint. He also says the Monitoring Officer referred to the Nolan Principles as ‘concepts. He considers the Council has failed to act according to the letter and spirit of the law and the Ombudsman has a duty to investigate his complaint.
15. I understand Mr X’s opinion is the Council’s view that there were “no conditions” to the councillor’s participation in the meeting and the Nolan Principles are only “concepts” are wrong. He says this position is not consistent with the terms of the Localism Act 2011. He believes the Council is guilty of service failure and the Ombudsman has a duty to investigate his complaint.
16. However, our role is to consider complaints of maladministration and service failure causing injustice. We will not investigate matters where the personal injustice caused by the fault is not significant or where it has been largely remedied.
17. Apart from the delay in responding to him, I have not seen any evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complaint. Mr X may disagree with the Council’s view; however, the Ombudsman is not an inspectorate, or a regulatory body and it is not our role to interpret disputed points of law.
18. Mr X stated the Council’s decision not to investigate the complaint caused him stress, sleeplessness, and anxiety. He also says the decision is preventing him from returning to the Parish Council to have the matter debated. While I have not doubt that Mr X found the matter stressful, I have seen no evidence to show the Council is preventing him from raising the matter with the parish council.
19. Contrary to Mr X’s view, the Ombudsman has no duty to investigate this complaint. The Council has considered the complaint that he made, referred to the relevant information and consulted the independent person. It is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. Also, while I acknowledge Mr X has found the matter stressful, I do not consider his personal injustice is sufficient to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I will not investigate this complaint. The Council apologised for the late response to Mr X’s complaint. I have not seen any other evidence of fault in the way the Council came to its decision. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Also, I do not consider that Mr X’s injustice is sufficient to warrant our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman