Summary: Mr X complains the Council refuses to investigate his complaint that a Councillor breached the code of conduct. The Ombudsman will not investigate. Other than a minor delay in telling Mr X of its’ decision, we are unlikely to find fault. Nor can we achieve the outcome he is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to investigate his report that a Councillor breached the code of conduct. He wants:
• The Councillor involved to apologise
• The Councillor kept away from children
• The Councillor fired unless she accepts her action was wrong

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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• 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. I considered information provided by Mr X and watched the Councillors’ comments on YouTube.
4. I also considered the information provided by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council that a Councillor breached the Council’s code of conduct when she admitted to brainwashing children and accusing others of doing the same. He provided a link to a YouTube video in which the Councillor commented on children and education.
6. The Council’s code of conduct states that it is engaged only when a councillor is acting as a Member of the Council.
7. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint according to its standards procedures for member complaints. It confirms it sought the opinion of the independent person and the Council solicitor before making the decision.
8. It decided that, while she mentioned she was a Councillor, the Councillor was not speaking as a representative of the Council when she made her comments on YouTube. Therefore, the code is not engaged and there is no breach.
9. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view. He says the Councillor introduced herself as a Councillor on the clip and therefore the code is engaged.
10. The Ombudsman does not offer a right of appeal against a council’s decision on member conduct complaints, but we can consider if there was fault in the way the council considered the complaint.
11. The chronology provided by the Council shows that it considered Mr X’s complaint according to the published arrangements. However, due to an administrative error it failed to advise Mr X of its decision within 20 working days or advise him of a delay. This is fault.
12. The Council has provided a copy of the apology made to Mr X for the delay. I consider this to be a suitable remedy for the delay.
13. However, as previously stated, the Ombudsman does not offer a right of appeal against the Council’s decision that its code of conduct was not engaged. It decided, having followed the correct procedure, and viewed the video, that the Councillor was not representing the Council. In the absence of procedural fault, this is a decision it is entitled to make.
14. Mr X wants the Councillor to be fired and kept away from children. Even if we were to find fault, which I consider unlikely, we cannot achieve this outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council came to its decision not to investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is fault in the delay in informing Mr X of the outcome, but I consider the apology to be an acceptable remedy for this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman