Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer considered a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault in how the Monitoring Officer reached their decision to take no further action.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr C, complains about the decision by the Council’s Monitoring Officer to take no further action in relation to his complaint about the conduct of a councillor. Mr C complains that the Monitoring Officer subsequently refused to answer questions he asked regarding the issues he raised with the councillor.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We do not provide an appeal against the Council’s decision, we can only consider how the Council considered Mr C’s complaint. It is not our role to investigate or comment on the actions of the councillor Mr C complained about.
7. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr C’s complaint, spoke to the councillor, and considered correspondence between both partied. The Monitoring Officer decided that the councillor had responded to Mr C’s correspondence in a timely manner and therefore there was insufficient evidence that the councillor had breached the Council’s code of conduct. The Monitoring Officer explained this to Mr C and said they would not be progressing the matter further.
8. I have seen no indication of fault by the Council in how it considered Mr C’s complaint, so I am unable to challenge the merits of its decision. I also see no evidence of fault in how the Monitoring Officer communicated with Mr C after the consideration of his complaint had been concluded.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman