Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take action over a local councillor whom he says has failed to properly represent or respond to the views of local residents regarding a new traffic scheme. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about a local councillor whom he says is responsible for the introduction of a low traffic neighbourhood scheme (LTN) in his local area. He says the Monitoring Officer denied that the Councillor was responsible for the scheme and that the councillor in question has ignored the representations of residents including Mr X.

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
• 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. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. Mr X has commented on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X complained to the Council about the failure of his local councillor to properly represent the views of residents against a traffic scheme which he is responsible for introducing. He says the Councillor has refused to answer his questions or to take action to stop the scheme which some residents oppose. He has also failed to communicate properly with other local politicians and his Member of Parliament.
5. The Council’s Monitoring Officer told Mr X that he could not investigate any breaches of the members’ Code of Conduct in this matter because the councillor was not responsible for the implementation of the traffic scheme. The scheme was approved by the Council and is being implemented by the Environment and Operational Services Director. This Department is responsible for the introduction of the approved scheme and it is not within the control of a single member of the Council.
6. The Ombudsman has limited powers to investigate complaints about Member Conduct. We can consider the way in which the Monitoring Officer considered the complaint, but we are not an appeal body and cannot reconsider the Monitoring Officer’s decision if there was no fault in the procedure.
7. In this case the Monitoring Officer gave a correct explanation of the Councillor’s involvement and there was no breach of the Code to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman