Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of two complaints against a parish councillor. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and any injustice caused to the complainant is not sufficient to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says the Council failed to properly consider her two complaints about the Chair of a parish council, Councillor Y. In particular, she says it accepted Councillor Y’s misleading and misdirected version of events, without properly considering and checking all the evidence. Mrs X feels her reputation has been discredited, that democracy has been removed, and she has lost all trust that the standards process is fair and just.

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 an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

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 Mrs X;
• Information about the Council’s ‘Standards Arrangements’, available on its website; and,
• The agenda and minutes for the parish council meetings referred to in Mrs X’s complaints.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

What happened

6. Councillor Y called Mrs X following correspondence between her and the parish council clerk about the parish council being biased towards parts of the parish. Mrs X’s subsequent code of conduct complaint to the District Council said Councillor Y was abusive, intimidating, insulting and he used a threatening tone. Mrs X’s correspondence about the alleged bias and her call with Councillor Y were discussed at a subsequent parish council meeting. Mrs X says Councillor Y has unjustly defamed her character with parish council members.
7. The District Council considered Mrs X’s complaint and wrote to her with its decision that there was no supporting evidence to substantiate the alleged breach of the code of conduct by Councillor Y.
8. At another parish council meeting, one item on the agenda was to ‘consider a resident’s continued correspondence with the clerk and agree any actions’. Councillor Y declared a personal interest in this item. It was considered, amongst other matters, during the part of the meeting where the press and public were excluded. Mrs X subsequently contacted all parish councillors, asking if she was the resident referred to. Councillor Y responded on behalf of the parish council, as the clerk was on leave. In summary, he said the agenda and minutes had sought to preserve and respect the anonymity of residents who had been in contact with the parish council. This was especially so where discussions had taken place following the agreement to exclude the public and the press from Council deliberations as confidential personal or commercial details are likely to be discussed. He said no further information is required to be provided to members of the public.
9. Mrs X made a second complaint to the District Council about the handling of this item and that Councillor Y had not disclosed a prejudicial interest in it.
10. The Council concluded the concerns Mrs X had raised were in respect of the parish council as a whole and could not be considered as a code of conduct complaint. In summary, it said it was for Councillor Y, as Chair, to conduct the meeting as he saw fit, within the constraints of the adopted standing orders and code of conduct. Furthermore, it confirmed the parish council’s standing orders only deal with disclosable pecuniary interests (not prejudicial interests), and there had been no requirement for Councillor Y to declare such an interest in this case.

Back to top

My assessment

11. The Ombudsman cannot investigate parish councillors or their conduct, and we do not offer a right of appeal against a District Council’s decision on code of conduct complaints against parish councillors. We can only look at how the District Council considered the code of conduct complaints against Councillor Y.
12. I appreciate Mrs X disagrees with the outcome of her two complaints. However, I am satisfied the Council dealt with the complaints in line with its arrangements for code of conduct complaints before deciding not to take further action. It considered whether Mrs X’s concerns could be dealt with as code of conduct complaints, consulted with the Independent Person on the first complaint, and wrote to Mrs X with its decisions and the reasons for them. These were decisions the Council was entitled to reach.
13. Further, while I appreciate Mrs X may remain upset by her interactions with the parish council and Councillor Y, I do not consider the injustice caused to her, from how the District Council dealt with her code of conduct complaints as a stand‑alone matter, causes her injustice to a degree that would warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the District Council considered her concerns, and any injustice caused to her is not sufficient to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman