Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Deputy Monitoring Officer dealt with a code of conduct complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council’s Deputy Monitoring Officer dealt with his complaint about the conduct of local councillors. Mr X says the Deputy Monitoring Officer decided not to investigate his concerns despite the seriousness of his allegations and the decision was not in line with the Council’s policy for dealing with code of conduct complaints.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Local Authorities have a duty to designate a Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure that the authority, its officers and members maintain the highest standards of conduct. Each council has different rules for dealing with complaints about code of conduct breaches.
5. The Ombudsman does not provide an appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decisions. We are also unable to investigate or comment on the actions of the councillors complained about. We can consider the Council’s administration of a code of conduct complaint. However, where a decision has been made in line with the correct procedure, taking account of the relevant evidence, the Ombudsman will generally not criticise the decision, even if the complainant does not agree with it.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Deputy Monitoring Officer dealt with the matter in line with the Council’s rules for code of conduct complaints before deciding not to take further action. The Deputy Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns and the evidence available and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated. The Deputy Monitoring Officer also consulted the Independent Person.
7. Mr X says the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s decision not to investigate most of his allegations rests on their view the complaint is vexatious. Mr X says the Deputy Monitoring Officer has provided no evidence to justify this view. However, I am satisfied the Deputy Monitoring Officer properly explained the reasons for their decision not to investigate. I understand Mr X may disagree with the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s reasoning, but they were entitled to use their judgement to decide not to take further action. As the Deputy Monitoring Officer properly considered Mr X’s concerns it is unlikely I could find fault.
8. Mr X also says there was a delay before the Council responded to his complaint. However, I do not consider that any injustice caused to Mr X because of this delay would be significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman