Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint made against a councillor. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we will find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the responses he received to enquiries he made to a local councillor and about the Council’s handling of his complaint about this matter.

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
• 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..

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Dissatisfied with the responses he had received from a local councillor to enquiries he had made, Mr X submitted a complaint of councillor misconduct against the councillor to the Council. He said the councillor had disrespected him and had brought the Council and the role of councillor into disrepute by failing to respond fully to his enquiries.
5. The Council’s Monitoring Officer considered the code of conduct complaint in line with normal procedures by speaking to the councillor concerned and taking into account the views of the Independent Persons. Having done so the Monitoring Officer decided not to start a formal investigation because there was no evidence there had been a breach of the code. In responding to Mr X, the Officer explained the councillor did not have to answer Mr X’s queries.

Assessment

6. We do not offer a right of appeal against a council’s decision on member conduct complaints. We can consider if there was fault in the way the council considered a complaint and we will only investigate if there is sufficient evidence to warrant our involvement.
7. Mr X claims that, despite the involvement of the Independent Persons, there was a conflict of interest because the Officer and the councillor work together. However, this is not evidence of a conflict of interest and I have seen no evidence to suggest there was fault in the way the Council dealt with the matter.
8. In responding to my draft decision Mr X repeats his view that the councillor had been rude and dismissive towards him by failing to engage with the questions and issues he raised. However, while I note Mr X’s views on the matter, I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council did not properly consider his complaint and unfortunately for Mr X the councillor is not obliged to engage with him in the way Mr X would like.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we will find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman