Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to deal appropriately with her complaint about the conduct of a parish councillor. The Council has not caused Mrs X injustice and it would not be a good use of limited public resources to investigate. We cannot investigate the actions of the parish councillor which are outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to deal appropriately with her complaint about the conduct of a parish councillor. She says the Council’s communication was poor, it delayed replying, and did not comply with its complaint procedure. Mrs X wants the Council to formally investigate the councillor. She considers the informal resolution of an apology is not adequate and the councillor’s apology is not sincere. Mrs X says the Council caused her stress, inconvenience, and she felt ignored.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We investigate complaints about local authorities and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of parish councils. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered Mrs X’s information, comments and reply to the draft decision statement. The Council has supplied the monitoring officer correspondence including the decision. The information includes Mr X’s complaint about the same matter.

Back to top

What I found

7. During the summer Councillor Y posted on a website photographs of several residents’ hedges said to be causing difficulty using footpaths. Reference was made to anti-social behaviour and the possibility that action could be taken against residents. Mrs X told the Council that none of the hedges were hers.
8. In July 2020, Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council about Councillor Y. The complaints include Councillor X’s tone being inappropriate, that he was acting outside his responsibility and giving the impression he was acting for the parish council. He had acted unfairly by deleting posts from those who disagreed with him and had brought the parish council into disrepute. They also complained that Councillor Y breached data protection by referring to a communication from Mrs X about another matter. He knew she wanted to keep things confidential.
9. In August, the Council received a group complaint from parish councillors against Councillor Y. They suggested that he had breached the councillor code of conduct:
1. Paragraph 1.4: bringing the parish council into disrepute by facebook actions, deleting posts, and actions regarding the highways matter.
2. Paragraph 1.6: Had failed to keep a high standard of conduct, impartiality, and integrity. It was alleged he had sought to silence other councillors and undermined public confidence in the parish council.
10. The Council’s monitoring officer, who deals with councillor conduct complaints, wrote to Mrs X in August explaining her approach and referred the matter to the parish council clerk. She later consulted the Council’s independent person on conduct complaints. On 28 October and 20 November the monitoring officer wrote to Mrs X. She apologised for the delay in dealing with the matter. She explained her view and decision:
1. A local resolution by way of an apology, considering the parish council action, was an appropriate way to deal with the matter rather than a formal investigation which would not achieve more.
2. The monitoring officer had spoken to Councillor Y and considered he was sincere in wishing to apologise and the terms of the written apology were appropriate.
3. The parish council had passed a vote of no confidence in Councillor Y because his behaviour was not becoming of his position which was a public censure.
4. Mrs X was advised that data protection matters should be taken up with the information commissioner (the parish council did not consider it responsible for the website and/or facebook posts).
11. Councillor Y’s unsigned public apology statement includes apologising for the upset and ill feeling. It says he overreacted and he had not intended to name and shame people on facebook. He was ‘sincerely sorry’ for offending and upsetting others.
12. Mrs X in her reply to my draft decision statement says she has correspondence which shows Councillor Y was not sincere in his apology. She says she ‘will pursue via another avenue’. Mrs X says the Council was incompetent in how it dealt with the matter, did not reflect on practice, and did not learn lessons. She says, ‘I realise this is a very minor dispute’. She says I have not commented on the data protection breach.

Analysis

13. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
14. We investigate fault causing injustice. There is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council has considered relevant information and has explained its decision. The Ombudsman cannot lawfully question a decision taken without fault.
15. The Council’s handling of the complaint has not caused Mrs X injustice. It has apologised for the delay.
16. Investigation would not be a good use of limited public resources.
17. We cannot investigate the actions of the parish council or Councillor Y because they are outside our jurisdiction (see paragraph 4 above). This includes a data protection complaint.
18. If Mrs X believes there has been a breach of data protection law she may go to the information commissioner (see paragraph 5 and 8).

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to deal appropriately with her complaint about the conduct of a parish councillor. The Council has not caused Mrs X an injustice and it would not be a good use of limited public resources to investigate. We cannot investigate the actions of the parish councillor which are outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman