Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a code of conduct complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint about the conduct of parish councillors and says the Monitoring Officer’s recommendation has not been complied with.

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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. 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 parish council or 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.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the 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 Monitoring Officer considered Ms X’s concerns and the evidence available and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated. The Monitoring Officer decided the code of conduct had not been breached in relation to parts of Ms X’s complaint. The Officer also decided it would not be in the public interest to pursue other matters due to the time that had passed since the issues complained about occurred. However, the Monitoring Officer said the councillor would be advised to supply an up-to-date register of interests.
8. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their judgement to decide a formal investigation was not needed. As the Monitoring Officer properly considered Ms X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Ms X says the councillor has not supplied an up-to-date register of interests as requested. However, the Council has confirmed the parish council has been contacted and the register of interests is now being updated. I understand the register was not updated within 28 days as it should have been. But I cannot say Ms X has suffered any significant personal injustice because of any delays in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault and Ms X has not suffered any significant injustice due to the delays updating the register of interests.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman