Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his complaints about the conduct of a councillor. Mr X says he has been caused stress and his character has been called into question. We will not investigate as it is unlikely we will find fault causing a significant injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s responses to his complaints about the conduct of a councillor. Mr X complained the councillor made prejudicial and inaccurate comments in a Council meeting relating to the death of a prominent figure in America and deaths of black people in police custody in the UK. Mr X also complains the councillor was condescending towards him when he answered a question Mr X had put to him about these matters at a Council meeting. Mr X says he has been caused stress in dealing with this matter and that his good character has had aspersions cast upon 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’. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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. I have considered what Mr X said in his complaint and sent him my draft decision on it for his comments. I have considered the comments Mr X made in response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X complained to the Council after a councillor in a public speech referred to the ‘murder’ of a prominent figure in America by police. Mr X complained this was a biased and prejudicial statement by the councillor as no criminal trial in respect of the police officers’ actions had taken place. Mr X also complained the councillor’s comments about the numbers of stop and search of black people and deaths of black people in custody were misleading.
5. Mr X complained again to the Council about the way the same councillor responded to a question Mr X asked him at a council meeting about the matters in his initial complaint. Mr X feels the councillor was condescending in his response and answered his question in a way that implied he did not care about black lives.
6. Mr X has been caused stress from the way the Council dealt with his complaints and feels aspersions have been cast upon his good character. Mr X wants a public apology from the councillor.
7. The Council dealt with Mr X’s complaints in line with its procedure for dealing with councillor conduct complaints. In respect of the first complaint, it said that given the nature of the debate, language used might be somewhat emotive though it did not consider the councillor’s conduct was at issue. The Council did decide to take action in respect of the use of the word ‘murder’, changing it to ‘killing’ in an amended press release. It did not consider any action was necessary in respect of the councillor’s statements about stop and search/deaths in custody.
8. The Council also concluded the councillor was not in breach of its code of conduct in the way he responded to Mr X’s question at a Council meeting. The Council acknowledged that the councillor’s response was robust but it did not consider it was directed at Mr X personally or implied that Mr X was racist in anyway.

Analysis

9. We cannot question the Council’s decisions on Mr X’s complaint unless there is fault in the way they were reached. From the evidence seen so far, there is no indication of Council fault. The Council took full account of Mr X’s complaints and considered them in line with its procedure. The Council made decisions it is entitled to make.
10. While Mr X feels strongly about these issues, from our perspective, the injustice Mr X claims is not at a level that would warrant our further involvement. In addition, we have no remit to impose sanctions on individual officers at the Council so we cannot obtain a personal apology to Mr X from the councillor.
11. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. My decision is we will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council causing a significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman