Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to take his complaint that a councillor breached the code of conduct seriously. And that it has taken the word of the councillor without question. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Further investigation is unlikely to find fault or lead to a different outcome. Nor has Mr X suffered sufficient personal injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has failed to properly consider his complaint that a councillor breached the code of conduct. He says the Council accepted the word of the councillor over Mr X’s documented evidence. And did not question the matter with witnesses to the event.
2. Mr X says it is unlikely the Council could recompense him for the injustice he has suffered. However, he wants an apology.

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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault
• 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, including the Council’s response to his complaint. He commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council in October 2019 that a councillor had breached the code of conduct. He said the councillor took 2 months to respond to an email he sent in December 2015 about a planning application.
6. The Council has published arrangements for dealing with complaints about councillors. This says complaints will not normally be referred for investigation where they are not received within three months of the alleged misconduct without exceptional circumstances, for example and allegation of bullying or harassment.
7. The Monitoring Officer assessed the complaint. He noted the email was sent in December 2015. Mr X’s complaint is therefore late as it was made 4 years after the event. The Council is therefore under no obligation to accept or investigate Mr X’s complaint.
8. As the complaint was related to a planning matter, the Monitoring Officer reviewed the progress of the planning application. He noted Mr X emailed the councillor in December 2015 asking him to call in the application to be decided by the planning committee if officers were minded to refuse it.
9. In January, Mr X’s planning agent emailed the councillor asking him to visit the site. The councillor replied saying he would not visit. He suggested Mr X contact his ward councillors and ask them to call in the application.
10. The agent contacted the ward councillors in February 2016. The ward councillors advised it was too late. If the request had been made before Christmas, it was likely the case would be decided by committee.
11. Following correspondence between the planning officers and Mr X’s agent, he withdrew the application in April 2016.
12. Mr X submitted a new application in May 2016. The planning committee made the decision on the application which was the original outcome Mr X sought in his email of December 2015. The committee refused the application. Mr X appealed to the Planning Inspectorate and permission was granted in March 2017.

Assessment

13. The Council’s arrangements for dealing with complaints about councillors say the complaint must be made within three months of the alleged event.
14. Mr X’s complained four years after the alleged event. The complaint did not contain any allegations of bullying or harassment. The Council was under no obligation to consider Mr X’s late complaint.
15. However, the Council’s Independent Person suggested the complaint be considered as people should be confident the Council has a rigorous response to complaints.
16. The Monitoring Officer asked for the councillor’s response to Mr X’s complaint. The councillor says he has no record of receiving Mr X’s email in December 2015. Mr X says the councillor is lying and he provided evidence to prove this.
17. 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 or we consider it in the public interest to do so.
18. In this case the event Mr X complains about occurred in 2015. Therefore, his complaint to the Council was late. The Council had the right to refuse to accept the complaint. However, the Independent Person suggested it was reviewed to give the public confidence in the complaints process.
19. I understand Mr X thinks the Council should question the councillor’s denial that he received his email or seek information from witnesses. However, the Council’s arrangements for dealing with complaints of breaches of the code of conduct are clear. Mr X’s complaint is late. The Council has no obligation to accept or consider Mr X’s complaint. The Monitoring Officer’s review of the matter has not revealed any exceptional circumstances which the Council believes to warrant investigation.
20. The events which are the subject of Mr X’s concerns about the councillor’s behaviour occurred in 2015. Yet Mr X waited until 2019 before making a formal complaint. In his comment on the draft version of this decision Mr X gave no reason why he did not complain to the Council sooner.
21. It is my view that Mr X has not suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s decision not to uphold his complaint about the actions of a councillor 4 years ago. Also, I do not consider it a good use of public resources to conduct an investigation purely to achieve an apology which is the only outcome we could reasonably seek.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
• we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint that a councillor breached the code of conduct
• an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome
• it is not a good use of public resources purely to obtain an apology
• I do not consider that Mr X has suffered sufficient injustice because of the Council’s decision not to uphold his complaint about the councillor to warrant our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman