Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not properly investigate a complaint that a Councillor had breached its Members’ Code of Conduct. There is no sign that any fault by the Council has caused the complainant an injustice to warrant our involvement, and it is unlikely we could achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained to the Council that a Councillor (I shall refer to him as Councillor B), breached the code of conduct by libelling him. He says this caused others to accuse him of bullying the Councillor. He says other people contacted his work and perpetuate the lies online. Mr X says this has damaged his reputation and good standing in the community.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X
• information provided by the Council
• the Council’s published procedure for dealing with complaints about councillors
5. Mr X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Councils procedure for dealing with complaints about councillors says:

“The Monitoring Officer (MO) will review every complaint received and, after consultation with the Independent Person, take a decision as to whether it merits formal investigation. This decision will normally be taken within 14 days of receipt of the complaint. Where the MO has taken a decision, he/she will inform the complainant and the member of his/her decision and the reasons for that decision.”

7. It also says:

“The Monitoring Officer will take account of the following criteria in reaching their decision:-

(a) It is against a councillor or co-opted member.

(b) The councillor or co-opted member was in office at the time of the alleged conduct.

(c) If proven, the complaint would be a breach of the Code of Conduct in force at the time of the alleged misconduct.

(d) The complainant has provided sufficient information for referral for investigation or any other action.

(e) The complaint is about someone who is no longer a member of the Council but is a member of another relevant authority.

(f) The complaint has already been the subject of an investigation or other action relating to the Code of Conduct.

(g) The complaint is about something that happened so long ago that there will be little benefit in taking action now, or it is not feasible to investigate for any other reason.

(h) The complaint is too trivial to warrant further action or not in the public interest.

(i) The complaint appears to be simply frivolous, vexatious, politically motivated or tit-for-tat.”

8. Mr X complained to the Council saying the Councillor had breached the code of conduct by libelling him.
9. The MO sought further information from Mr X. He also asked Councillor B for his response to the complaint.
10. When he received further information from Mr X, the MO consulted the Independent Person as required by the procedure. Having received the Independent Person’s comments and reviewed the information provided by Mr X in his complaint, posts and comments on social media by Councillor B the MO decided the Councillor had not breached the code of conduct. He also noted Councillor B cannot be held responsible for posts made by other people.

Assessment

11. 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.
12. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because a complainant disagrees with it. Our role is to consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached, and whether any fault affected the outcome.
13. The Council’s complaints process for dealing with complaints about Members’ conduct says the MO considers the complaints and will ask the Councillor in question for comments.
14. The MO will consult a designated Independent Person before reaching a decision. A formal investigation will only be carried out if the MO and Independent Person consider it is possible there has been a significant breach of the Code.
15. The evidence I have seen indicates the MO considered the information Mr X provided and Councillor B’s comments in response. The MO also consulted with the Independent Person before he made his decision that the Councillor had not breached the code of conduct.
16. Mr X says the MO did not review the direct messages between the Councillor and members of the public or in-person activity and has treated the issue in isolation.
17. The role of the MO as stated in the Council’s procedure is to “review every complaint received.” It is not to carry out a detailed investigation of the complaint.
18. I understand the MO sought clarification of the complaint from Mr X 3 times before reviewing the matter. He confirmed to the Independent Person that he was satisfied he has sufficient information to understand the complaint.
19. I consider the MO’s decision letter to Mr X provides a reasoned explanation of the decision reached.
20. In the circumstances, I see no sign of fault in the process the Council followed in deciding Mr X’s complaint and, therefore have no grounds to question the merits of that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I will not investigate this complaint. I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council which has caused the complainant an injustice to warrant our involvement, and it is unlikely we could achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman