Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council investigated a complaint into his conduct at parish council meetings. The Ombudsman did not find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council investigated a complaint into his conduct at parish council meetings. Specifically, Mr X complained:
• The Council would not tell him who complained about him.
• The complaint took seven months to investigate, causing him worry and upset.
• The Council leaked details of the investigation, which damaged his reputation and local standing.

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. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Council’s procedure for dealing with complaints about the member code of conduct.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s procedure for member conduct complaints

6. The Council’s procedure confirms that members will usually be told who has made a complaint against them. However, in exceptional circumstances the Monitoring Officer (MO) will agree not to disclose the complainant’s identity. Examples of exceptional circumstances include:
• the complainant has reasonable grounds for believing that they will be at risk of harm (physical, reputational or property) if their identity is disclosed.
• the complainant is an officer who works closely with the Member, and they are afraid of the consequences to their employment if their identity is disclosed.
7. Where a complaint cannot be resolved informally, the MO will undertake a fact-finding exercise, which may include speaking to the subject member and complainant.
8. In deciding whether to recommend a complaint merits further investigation, the MO will consider:
• Whether the complaint is about the conduct of a member or co-opted member of the Borough Council or one of the 27 Parish/Town Councils in the Borough who was in office and the Code of Conduct in force at the time of the alleged conduct.
• Whether the conduct would, if proven, be a breach of the Code of Conduct.
• Whether the complaint is sufficiently serious to merit further action.
9. Where a complaint has been referred for investigation, the MO, or another person appointed by the MO, will conduct an investigation.

What happened

10. I have summarised below some of the events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
11. On 16 November 2020 the Council received an email complaining about Mr X’s conduct.
12. The Council’s MO spoke to the complainant on 17 November to try to bring about an informal resolution. The complainant said this was not possible. They asked the Council to investigate the complaint and to withhold their identity from Mr X. The complainant gave reasons why they wished to remain anonymous, and the MO agreed. The MO then told Mr X of the complaint.
13. On 7 December, Mr X made a counter complaint. He said the complaint against him was baseless, retaliatory, and politically motivated.
14. The Council’s Ethical Governance & Personnel Committee (EGPC) met on 17 December to consider the complaint. The meeting was delayed because the MO had COVID-19. The EGPC decided the complaint should be investigated.
15. The Council told the parties that it would appoint an investigator in the new year.
16. In January 2021, a MO from another council agreed to investigate. However, they then went on long term sick leave in March. The Council appointed a new investigator on 30 April.
17. The investigator contacted the complainant on 8 May seeking more information. They also contacted Mr X to confirm the process and to tell him the investigation could take twelve weeks.
18. The investigator received more information from the complainant on 11 May.
19. Mr X sent the investigator statements from the parish clerk and assistant clerk on 13 May. He asked the investigator to decide matters swiftly.
20. The investigator then contacted the clerk and assistant clerk to verify their statements. They responded on 17 May.
21. Mr X emailed the Council on 19 May complaining about delays finishing the investigation. He said if the investigation was not closed by 30 June, he would tell his solicitor to take action for libel and reputational damage.
22. The Council said it would ask the investigator if they could expedite the complaint. It asked for more detail about the reputational damage Mr X alleged. It also asked Mr X for evidence if he was concerned a Council member had discussed the matter outside the committee.
23. Mr X said the longer the complaint hung over him the more reputational damage he would suffer. He said he had been contacted by residents and political opponents who found out about the investigation. He gave the Council evidence of this. He said he had other messages and would gather statements to pass to his solicitor.
24. The investigator sent follow up questions to the clerk and assistant clerk on 25 May. The assistant clerk responded the same day. The clerk replied on 1 June.
25. The investigator confirmed to the parties that their fieldwork was complete on 6 June, and they did not need to do interviews. The investigator asked Mr X for details of his counter complaint and Mr X provided further information.
26. The investigator completed their report and sent it to the MO on 20 June. They concluded Mr X had no case to answer.
27. The chair of the EGPC and an independent person agreed with the investigator’s findings. The Council confirmed the decision to Mr X on 23 June.
28. Mr X asked the Council for the name of the complainant. The Council refused. Mr X again said he was referring the matter to his solicitor.
29. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 June 2021.

Response to enquiries

30. The Council told me it has a duty to consider all complaints received. As the MO could not resolve the complaint, it was presented to the EGPC. The EGPC felt, if the allegations were true, it would constitute a breach of the code of conduct. It decided, due to the vague nature of the complaint, the only way to get full details was to investigate.
31. The Council said it assigned the investigation to a MO from another council, who then went on long term sick leave. The Council was not immediately aware of this but appointed an external investigator as soon as it could. It said it kept Mr X updated throughout and told him of the result without delay.
32. The Council denied sharing information about the complaint. When Mr X said he placed it in the hands of his solicitor, the Council did not look into it further.

Analysis

33. Mr X is unhappy the Council did not disclose the name of the complainant. The Council’s policy states it will only withhold the complainant’s details in exceptional circumstances. It is not my role to decide whether there were exceptional circumstances here. I can only assess whether the Council has properly considered the issue. On the evidence seen, I am satisfied the Council gave due consideration to the circumstances and it was therefore entitled to decide not to disclose the complainant’s name.
34. Overall, it took the Council about seven months to decide the complaint. However, the investigation itself took about eight weeks to complete. That was less than the twelve weeks the investigator estimated, and I consider this was a reasonable length of time.
35. The investigation was delayed at the outset, but I consider the delays were outside the Council’s control. First, the MO officer caught COVID-19, which delayed the EGPC meeting. Then when the Council appointed an investigator, they went on long term sick leave and the Council was not told.
36. The Council’s policy does not mention timescales for investigating member code of conduct complaints. While I can appreciate it was distressing for Mr X that there was not a swift resolution, I have not seen evidence of any unreasonable delays by the Council.
37. Mr X suspected a Council member shared information about the complaint. That is because he received messages about the complaint from people who were not involved in the investigation. While I do not dismiss Mr X’s complaint, I have not seen evidence showing a Council member shared information. I therefore do not find the Council at fault.
38. Being the subject of a complaint was always going to be distressing for Mr X. However, I did not find evidence his distress resulted from any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation. The Ombudsman did not find fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman