Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate a complaint that a councillor had breached its Code of Conduct. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complaint, and it is reasonable for her to complain to the Information Commissioner about how the Council dealt with her request for information.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Ms C, complains that the Council refused to investigate her complaint that a councillor had breached its Code of Conduct.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered Ms C’s complaint and the Council’s response. I also sent Ms C a draft version of this decision and invited her comments.

Back to top

What I found

Member Standards complaints

5. The Localism Act 2011 says councils must have a Code of Conduct for elected Councillors. They must also have a procedure in place to consider allegations that a Councillor has not complied with the Code. This involves the appointment of an Independent Person who must be consulted before councils reach decisions about allegations that it has decided it will investigate.
6. This Council’s arrangements for dealing with complaints of a breach of the code of conduct says:

” Where the Monitoring Officer determines that the complaint does not relate to a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct or contains insufficient evidence of a failure the Monitoring Officer shall reject the complaint.”

What happened

7. Ms C complained to the Council that a councillor had commissioned a report which made allegations about Ms C which were not true. Ms C also complained about the Council’s failure to properly respond to a Subject Access Request (SAR).
8. The Council subsequently wrote to Ms C and informed her that it had rejected her complaint. It said that the Monitoring Officer had considered the complaint but concluded that, on the information Ms C had provided, it did not relate to a failure of the councillor to comply with the code of conduct.

Assessment

9. I will not investigate Ms C’s complaint about the Council’s decision to reject her complaint that a councillor had breached its Code of Conduct. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body for member standards complaints. Our role is to consider the way the Council considered the complaint. In this case this means considering whether Monitoring Officer followed the Council’s procedure for dealing with code of conduct complaints. We cannot consider the actions of the councillor if we do not find fault in the way the Council considered the complaint.
11. We can consider whether there were avoidable delays, whether the investigation failed to take account of relevant information or did not follow the Council’s procedures.
12. The Council dealt with Ms C’s complaint according to the procedure set out in its constitution. Having considered the information provided by Ms C it decided there was not enough to support her complaint that the councillor had breached the Council’s Code of Contact. It therefore rejected her complaint and explained to her why. Because it made the decision not to investigate the complaint, there was no requirement for the Council to consult with the Independent Person in this case.
13. Ms C disagrees with the Council’s decision. She believes the information she gave to the Deputy Monitoring Officer is proof the Councillor breached the code.
14. Without evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision not to investigate, I cannot question that decision or investigate the councillor’s alleged actions.
15. I will also not investigate Ms C’s complaint that the Council failed to properly respond to a Subject Access Request. This is because she can complain to the Information Commissioner, who is better placed to investigate such complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I have not seen any evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to complain to the Information Commissioner about how the Council responded to her information request.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman