Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because Mr X is not significantly affected by this. There is also insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint about the actions of a councillor.

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 will find fault or the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (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. I have considered what Mr X said in his complaint to us and the Council’s decision on Mr X’s initial complaint. I have considered Mr X’s comments in response to my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council about a man visiting his housing estate, looking into properties and gardens. Mr X says the man claimed to be a councillor and that he was visiting the area to check required planning conditions had been met. Mr X says he has lived at his property for two years and the builder has long since departed. Mr X also complained the man broke the Covid-19 lockdown rules by visiting the estate.
6. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint. It accepts that the councillor was carrying out duties as an elected member in that he was inspecting the impact of a relatively new development on the environment and on the wellbeing of residents of the estate. In the Council’s view, Mr X’s complaint did not show that a breach of the code of conduct for elected members had taken place. The Council also considered any further investigation would be disproportionate. It concluded no further action was warranted.
7. The Council advised Mr X the allegations of breaching lockdown rules were matters for the police.
8. Mr X says that though the outcome of his complaint has not impacted him personally, he feels his complaint has been dismissed without evidence and that his concerns about inappropriate conduct are correct.

Assessment

9. The Council considered the complaint in line with its procedure for dealing with complaints about member conduct and was entitled to make the decision on it that it did. We cannot criticise the decision unless there was fault in the way it was made. I have not seen evidence of such fault.
10. Mr X is not personally affected to such a degree to warrant our investigating how the Council dealt with his complaint.
11. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. My decision is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X is not significantly affected and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman