Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of a complaint made against a councillor. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council did not deal properly with a group complaint made against a local councillor for comments he had made. She says the councillor should make a public apology, undergo external training and that he and the Council should have an action plan to show commitment to equality in the borough.

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 provide 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 and other local residents submitted a group complaint to the Council about comments made by a local councillor.
5. When Ms X contacted the Council for the outcome of the complaint it referred her to the resident from the group it had responded to and suggested she contact that resident for more information. Ms X says there was later some Council confusion about the making of the group complaint and she resubmitted the complaint.
6. Ms X then received a copy of the response initially sent out to the original complaint. This explained that it had been decided that the councillor’s actions did not constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct but that he would write a personal letter of apology to all signatories of the complaint and would undergo equality training. It noted that the councillor had already made a public apology for any misunderstanding and had put out statements of clarification. The Council also invited Ms X to participate in the BME forum and the Council’s equality review.
7. When Ms X contacted the Council because she had not received information about this participation or the apology from the councillor, it explained her details had been passed on to the officer leading on the equality review and that they would be in touch. It also advised her that the councillor had made a statement and apology at the recent Council meeting and that he would be writing to her personally shortly.

Assessment

8. The Council followed its normal procedures on receiving the member conduct complaint and consulted appropriately with the Independent Person. It decided the councillor’s comments did not constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct and that the complaint could be resolved informally.
9. As the councillor has made a public apology, and is due to make personal apologies to the group complainants, and the Council has confirmed to Ms X she will be contacted about participating, I see no matters here which warrant a formal investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman