Summary: We will not investigate how the Council considered a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. We are unlikely to find fault affected the Council’s decision not to pursue the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs B, complained the Council did not properly investigate her concerns about the conduct of a councillor. She said the councillor breached the Code of Conduct by refusing to speak to her on the phone. A third party took over the call and ended it.

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’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mrs B said in her complaint and background information provided by the Council. Mrs B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs B complained to the Council that a councillor had acted in a way that breached the Councillors’ Code of Conduct during a telephone call. The subject of the call, while of concern to Mrs B, was a highways matter. It was not within the remit of the councillor as the local county council is the highways authority.
7. The Council considered whether, if proven, the complaint would be a breach of the Code that would justify further investigation.
8. The Council’s Monitoring Officer asked the councillor to respond to the complaint. The Monitoring Officer considered what Mrs B and the councillor had said and after discussion with the Independent Person, decided the councillor had not breached the Code and so the Council would not investigate further.
9. The Monitoring Officer wrote to Mrs B to explain the decision. I have seen no evidence of fault in how the Monitoring Officer made this decision and we do not provide a right of appeal against it.
10. Mrs B has specifically complained the Monitoring Officer did not ask her to respond in the same way as the councillor. However, the Monitoring Officer was aware of Mrs B’s concerns and I have no reason to believe the decision would have been different had the Council given Mrs B a chance to respond.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council affected its decision not to investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the councillor. It is not our role to investigate or comment on the actions of the councillor she complained about or the third party who ended the call.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman