Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not deal with complaints she made against two councillors. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the Council has now responded to the complaints and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council did not deal with complaints she made against two councillors whose behaviour towards her she found humiliating and stressful.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms X and the Council. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X submitted a complaint to the Council in January 2020 complaining about the behaviour of a councillor during a planning meeting. In February she submitted a separate complaint about a second councillor’s actions at a meeting she attended.
5. In July, having received no response to her complaints, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.
6. In contacting the Council about Ms X’s complaints, it told us that the Monitoring Officer, the officer responsible for addressing complaints about member conduct, was, in accordance with normal procedures, seeking the views of the Independent Person, and would decide whether formal investigations were merited.
7. At the beginning of September, the Council wrote to Ms X to advise that it had decided the complaints would not be passed for investigation. It referred Ms X to point 11 under its criteria for assessing complaints against councillors which considers whether a complaint is “simply malicious, politically motivated or tit-for-tat and not sufficiently serious or an effective use of limited Council resources”. It concluded there had been no breach of the Code and that no further action was warranted in either of Ms X’s complaints.

Assessment

8. Ms X has now received the Council’s decisions on her complaints, although I note this was after a delay of some months.
9. The Ombudsman does not offer a right of appeal against a council's decision on member conduct complaints and 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. Having considered the matters raised by Ms X’s complaints I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman is warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has now responded to the complaints and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman