Summary: Ms Q complains about the Council’s decision not to investigate her complaint that councillors breached the code of conduct when deciding her planning application. She says the decision has a huge financial impact on her company. We will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault causing significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Ms Q, says her company does not accept the Councils decision not to investigate her complaint that councillors breached the code of conduct, or the delay in its response.

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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

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

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Ms Q, including the Council’s response to her complaint. I also considered the Councils procedures for dealing with complaints that Councillors have breached the Code of Conduct.
5. Ms Q had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms Q’s company applied for planning permission to extend mining at its site. Planning Officers recommended approval.
7. The Planning Committee heard from Officers, objectors (including 2 ward councillors) and a representative of the applicant. Following a recorded debate, the Committee decided to refuse the application.
8. Ms X complained to the Council the Committee Members had breached the Code of Conduct as there was no impartiality or open-mindedness in its approach to the application. She says the debate was “little short of a witch hunt aimed at the Operator with little or no comments relating to the application set before members. The one-sided debate also suggested a pre-determination of the application by Members.”
9. Ms Q emailed her complaint form to the address stated in the Council’s website. She received an automated acknowledgement advising a response should be sent within 20 working days. Ms Q stated she tried to contact the Monitoring Officer (MO) the day after putting in the complaint but could not reach her.
10. After 20 working days, Ms Q contacted the MO directly with a query. In her letter she referred to her earlier complaint.
11. The MO advised Ms Q that she could not trace the earlier email and asked for a copy.
12. Ms Q provided a copy of the complaint. The MO confirmed receipt stating, “I am not sure what happened to the original complaint.” She advised Ms Q she would share the complaint with the Councillors concerned and complete an assessment; estimating this will take 20 working days but she would try and speed up the matter.
13. The MO shared the complaint with the Planning Committee Members and received some responses. She also confirms she watched the Planning Committee recording.
14. The MO wrote to Ms Q. She confirmed she reviewed the complaint and watched the meeting. She concluded Ms Q’s complaint of a lack of impartiality and pre-determination was not reflected in the Committee’s actions. She believed the Member’s comments showed they had read the Case Officer’s report before the meeting and listened to the debate before deciding to refuse the application.
15. However, she agreed the reasons for refusing the application should be clearer and would send a reminder to the Committee of this requirement.
16. Dissatisfied with the response, Ms Q complained to us.

Assessment

17. We do not offer a right of appeal against a council’s decision on member conduct complaints, but we can consider if there was fault in the way the council considered the complaint. We will only investigate complaints if there is sufficient injustice to warrant our involvement or we consider it in the public interest to do so.
18. As it is required to do so, the Council has a policy on how it will deal with complaints about councillors. This states the MO will review complaints received and decide whether they should be investigated. My role here is to consider whether there was any fault in how the Council considered this.
19. The MO told Ms Q she had not received her complaint when it was first submitted, however, as soon as she was made aware of it, she started the process. Following her assessment, she explained why she did not consider the complaint should be investigated.
20. I understand Ms Q disagrees with this view but without additional evidence I am unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered her complaint. On the initial delay, I do not consider this caused sufficient injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I will not investigate this complaint. From the information I have seen, apart from the initial delay it is unlikely we will find fault in the way the Council considered her complaint that members breached the Code of Conduct. And the delay alone did not cause sufficient injustice to warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman