Summary: Mr D says the Council has failed to consider his complaint about a Councillor correctly. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault because the Council failed to respond to a key part of Mr D’s case. He has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to reconsider Mr D’s case.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council failed to correctly consider his complaint about the conduct 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have examined the information provided by Mr D including the Council’s response to his complaint. I have also viewed the video recording of the planning meeting in question.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mr D complained to the Council in 2020 about the conduct of a Councillor at a planning meeting. He said the Councillor had cut off his presentation and not allowed him to stand up to ease his back pain. The Council replied in March and said there was no fault by the Councillor in respect of the time Mr D had to present his case. The letter did not respond to the complaint about not being allowed to stand up.

What should have happened

7. When the Council receives a complaint about a Councillor it is considered by a Monitoring Officer who decides whether it warrants a formal investigation and if there is a breach of the Code of Conduct.
8. The response from the Council must cover the substantive points of complaint raised by the complainant.

Was there fault by the Council

9. The Council failed to reply to Mr D’s complaint about not being allowed to stand up to ease back pain. It was clearly aware of his concerns and references them in the complaint response but fails to provide any substantive reply.
10. In respect of the Council’s consideration of whether Mr D was not allowed to give his full presentation it incorrectly stated he was given a full three minutes. In fact, his presentation was ended around 13 seconds earlier than the full time period allowed.

Did the fault cause an injustice

11. The Council has failed to give Mr D a full reply to his complaint. It also gave incorrect information. This has meant Mr D is still waiting for a full and accurate reply.

Agreed action

12. In order to remedy the injustice to Mr D the Council agreed to my recommendations and will:
• Apologise to Mr D;
• Reconsider his complaint in line with procedures to ensure the back pain issue is responded to within the next four weeks if possible.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have upheld the complaint and competed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman