Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint made against local councillors who had sat on the planning committee of a district council. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint made against local councillors who sat on the planning committee of a district council which has now been abolished. He says the councillors had a prejudicial interest and that comments made by the Council officer investigating the complaint showed that he too had a prejudicial interest. Mr X says he has been given a jaundiced view of the process and that there should be a re-run of his complaint and a new investigation into the conduct of the investigating officer.

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, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr X and reviewed the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Before its abolition and replacement by the Council, the planning committee of a district council made a decision to approve a contentious planning application which Mr X did not support.
5. Just before the district council was dissolved in March 2019, Mr X made a complaint against local councillors who had sat on the planning committee for the application. He said they had prejudicial interests, were not impartial and should not have voted. As the district council had ceased to exist, the Council took over the complaint.
6. The Council investigated the complaint and in January 2020 decided that no further action would be taken, citing as factors the dissolution of the district council, the former councillors’ decision not to stand for election to the Council and the resulting inability to impose any sanction on them under the relevant complaints process.
7. Dissatisfied with this decision, and comments made in the report by the investigating officer about personal and prejudicial interests as referred to in the district council’s code of conduct, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

8. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint but concluded it would not take any further action, taking into account the fairly unusual set of circumstances which existed with the dissolution of the previous district council. While I note his disappointment with the decision, and that he takes issue with comments made by the investigating officer, I have seen no evidence of fault or injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
9. Mr X says there was a clear conflict of interest by the Council officer investigating the complaint because he had said he did not think the breach he had been asked to investigate should have formed part of the members code of conduct. Mr X says the officer should have stepped aside and passed the investigation on to someone who was independent. However, there is no evidence to suggest an investigation by a different officer would have led to a different decision. Moreover, the injustice claimed by Mr X is limited and does not warrant the launching of an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman