Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a complaint that a councillor breached the code of conduct. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complaint to justify investigating. Nor do I believe we can add to the Council’s investigation, or that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr B, is a member of a residents’ group. He complains for himself and several residents. He says the Council’s investigation into a complaint about a Councillor was flawed and little evidence he provided was considered.
2. Mr B wants:
• the Council to accept the Councillor breached the Code of Conduct
• the Council to recognise its complaints procedure failed in this case
• improved independent oversight of the planning process; and
• a review of the complaints procedure

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I also considered Mr X’s comments on the draft version of this decision.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained the Council that a Councillor breached the Code of Conduct in relation to a planning application which appeared before the Planning Committee chaired by him.
7. The Council decided the complaint merited an investigation. It appointed a senior solicitor in its legal department, previously uninvolved in the matter to carry out the investigation.
8. From the information I have seen the investigating officer (IO) interviewed several people including (but not limited to):
• Mr B and another representative of the residents’ group
• the Councillor
• Planning officers
• the solicitor in the planning team.
9. She considered the Code of Conduct, the arrangements for dealing with Code of Conduct complaints and guidance on probity in planning.
10. The shared her draft report with Mr B before finalising her report and recommending the Council find no breach of the Code.
11. The Council’s Standards Assessment Panel considered the report. The Council’s procedure requires consultation with its Independent Person before a decision is made on an allegation of a breach of the Code of Conduct. The minutes show Mr B, the subject Councillor, the Independent Person, and the IO were present, and all spoke at the meeting. The Committee withdrew and after deliberation the matter was pout to the vote. The Council upheld the IO’s report.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because having reviewed the information provided by the Council, I consider it unlikely that we could add to the investigation already carried out. Nor that an investigation by us is likely to lead to a different outcome.
13. Finally, we cannot require the Council to change its decision on Mr B’s complaint or implement independent oversight of the planning committee.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman