Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a petition and her complaint against councillors. The Council has not caused Ms Y an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains, for Ms Y, that the Council’s monitoring officer decided not to investigate Ms Y’s complaint about the conduct of councillors who considered a petition she presented. Mr X says there is no evidence to support the reason given that Ms Y’s complaint against the councillors was due to malice or ‘tit for tat’.
2. Mr X complains, for Ms Y, that the councillors failed to follow the procedure for debating petitions, failed to consider the substance of the petition, and instead made personal attacks on Ms Y. He says Ms Y was treated with contempt during the meeting and this caused her upset and distress. He says because the meeting is available via the internet Ms Y’s reputation was damaged in public. Mr X says the Council should apologise and pay Ms Y compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. 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:

• 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)

5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered the information and comments provided by Mr X and Ms Y. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X by telephone. I have considered the Council’s information including its February 2020 revised petition scheme policy, the agenda for the meeting (which includes the petition), and the Council’s assessment criteria for dealing with code of conduct complaints. I have watched the recording of the Council meeting where it deals with the petition.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Council’s policy on petitions allows for their use which is seen as a ‘direct influence on the political process’ (paragraph 1.1). A petition can be presented or signed by someone who ‘lives, works or studies in Braintree District’ (para 6.1). ‘Elected members will decide how to respond to the petition’, meetings will be in public, the petition organiser will be allowed to briefly address the meeting (paras 7.4 & 7.5). There is discretion about which Council committee will consider an appeal. Where a petition contains more than 1000 signatures it will usually be considered by full Council (para 7.6). At the end of a debate the chair of the meeting will ask the petition organiser if they would like to make a closing statement (para 8.2). A vote is taken in which councillors decide what, if any action, they wish to take.
9. For some years Ms Y has opposed proposals to develop ‘garden communities’ (new towns/large housing developments) in the district. In 2020 Ms Y presented a petition to the Council calling on the leader of the Council to resign. The petition criticises the leader for the failure of the garden communities plan which ‘has cost the taxpayers nearly £8 million pounds and led to speculative development right across our district’. The petition says the leader ignored the planning inspector’s advice in 2018 and that his ‘mismanagement’ caused a 2 year ‘fiasco’.
10. The Council decided Ms Y’s petition should be considered by full Council due to public interest. The Council had rejected 1057 signatures mainly due to being outside the district which brought the number below the threshold for consideration by full Council.
11. Ms Y presented her petition to the full Council meeting by internet link (due to the covid pandemic). Ms Y told members the Council had tried to play down the petition and “discredit me”. She stated the basic criticisms and added that councillors had no idea what it was like for residents to live with the threat of such proposals.
12. The leader of the Council replied to the petition which he considered contained ‘falsehoods’ and ‘half truths’ and amounted to a ‘personal vendetta’ against him. The leader says the whole tenor of the petition is that he acted alone when in fact decisions were taken by full Council and the planning committee. The chair of the meeting facilitated contributions from those present. Ms Y was not invited to speak again at the end of the meeting. A vote was taken which by a large majority decided to take no further action.
13. Ms Y complained to the Council about the conduct of the meeting in terms similar to this complaint. On 6 October 2020, the monitoring officer (having discussed with the required independent person) wrote to Ms Y explaining the decision not to investigate the complaint against 6 councillors (including the chair). The decision letter refers to the code of conduct requirements including treating people with respect. It gave the assessment criteria reason of malice or ‘tit for tat’ for not investigating. The letter says the meeting included the normal level of debate expected by members. It was reasonable for the leader to robustly defend himself. The background was a history of Ms Y engaging in vigorous exchanges with the Council and members via social media.

Analysis

14. I will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint for the following reasons:
15. The Ombudsman investigates fault causing injustice. I do not consider the Council caused Ms Y an injustice by either the decision not to investigate the code of conduct complaint or the handling of the petition and meeting. Ms Y presented her petition to full Council and explained her views. The chair of the meeting treated her and other participants fairly. The chair did not invite Ms Y to speak at the end of the meeting. However, this would not have made a difference to the outcome of the vote given the very large majority against taking further action. The leader of the Council was personally criticised and was entitled to defend himself. The meeting to some extent had a ‘political’ context (as recognised in the policy on petitions). Ms Y chose to take part in a public meeting where she was likely to get a strong response given the nature of her criticisms. If Ms Y has evidence of harm to her reputation she would need to consider her legal options.
16. Ms Y has not complained about the underlying issues. However, for the sake of completeness we would not investigate:
1. A complaint about the handling of the garden communities’ proposals would be largely outside our jurisdiction being made outside the ‘permitted period’ of 12 months for a complaint (see paragraph 5). This would cover the events referred to in 2018. Ms Y could have complained much sooner.
2. We are legally barred from investigating complaints which affect ‘all or most’ residents such as the Council wasting money (see paragraph 6).
3. The garden communities’ proposals are not being pursued. There is no ongoing issue and nothing to achieve by investigating. Such proposals would be subject to normal planning procedures.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint about the handling of a petition and her complaint against councillors. The Council has not caused Ms Y an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman