Summary: We find the Council correctly addressed Mr X’s complaint about a breach of the Member Code of Conduct, but there was delay in referring his complaint to the Monitoring Officer and failure to provide updates. The Council should apologise to Mr X for the delay and avoidable frustration. It has introduced service improvements to prevent recurrence but should also provide us with evidence of the changes. It should also remind staff handling Code of Conduct complaints of the need to provide timely responses to complaints, complainant emails and updates in the event of delays.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Did not deal with his complaint about a member breaching the Council’s Member Code of Conduct.
• Delayed responding to his communications and providing an outcome.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused him uncertainty and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

6. I discussed the case with Mr X and considered information provided by him and the Council. I considered comments on a second draft of this statement.
7. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my second draft decision. I considered comments received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, Guidance and Policy

8. The Localism Act 2011 places a duty on relevant authorities (councils) to handle cases about member conduct and standards.
9. Under sections 28(6) and (7) of the Act, Councils now must have in place “arrangements” for investigating allegations a council member or co-opted member has failed to comply with its code of conduct.
10. It is for the Council to decide the details of its code of conduct and the arrangements for dealing with complaints about member conduct. The code must be ‘consistent with the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership.
11. The arrangements for dealing with complaints must include the appointment of a least one Independent Person (IP). The IP has an advisory role and must be consulted before the authority takes a decision on an allegation it has investigated. The views of the IP can also be sought by the authority at any other stage after receipt of a complaint.
12. Complaints that a member has failed to comply with the code of conduct should be dealt with in accordance with the Council’s agreed procedure. The Monitoring Officer (MO) will usually carry out an initial assessment of complaints and decide whether it merits formal investigation. This is normally done in consultation with the IP.

The Council’s member’ conduct complaint policy

13. The Council’s Member Code of Conduct requires members show respect, politeness, and courtesy in all their contact with the public. It also places a duty on members to ensure their actions do not bring their role or the Council into disrepute.
14. The Council’s procedure for dealing with complaints that Councillors have breached the Code of Conduct says:
• The Monitoring Officer will provide details of the complaint formally to the Councillor and seek an initial response. The Councillor will be advised of the right to speak to the Independent Person.
• The Councillor should, within five working days or longer at the discretion of the Monitoring Officer, provide an initial response to the complaint.
• The Chair of the Standards Committee in consultation with Councillors of the Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer will then decide whether:
1. There is no breach of the Code, and no further action should be taken;
2. There is a potential breach of the Code and informal resolution is appropriate, to include for example mediation, training, apology, advice; or
3. There is a potential breach of the Code, and the Monitoring Officer should undertake or commission an investigation into the complaint with a view to a report then being considered by the Standards Committee.
• The Councillor and complainant will be kept informed and will be notified of the outcome of the consideration by the Chair and members of the Committee.
15. The Council’s Code of Conduct policy does not mention any specific timescales for providing a complaint outcome.

Ombudsman’s principles of good administrative practice

16. The Ombudsman published guidance on good administrative practice sets out the standards we expect when we investigate the actions of local authorities. This includes providing:
• Effective services and timely decisions.
• Planning and prioritising resources to ensure good customer service.
• Explaining and responding to any delays proactively.

What happened

17. Mr X left a comment on an official online account belonging to a Council member (M).
18. Mr X said M responded to his comment by saying he was ‘abusing women from behind a keyboard’ but later deleted it. The records indicate M replaced it with a different comment which said Mr X had been blocked.
19. Mr X complained saying M’s initial response to his comment had bought the Council into disrepute. He submitted an online complaint to the Council on 24 October 2022.
20. The Council acknowledged his complaint and said:
• It would refer the matter to Monitoring Officer (MO) after which it would be referred to the Chair of the Standards Committee (the Chair) for further consideration.
• It would seek M’s response to the complaint. It would then convene a consultation meeting with the Chair.
• The Chair was required to consult with other members including an Independent Person (IP) and the MO before reaching a decision.
• It would write to Mr X with the Chair’s decision or any further steps in the matter.
21. Mr X said he believed the complaints process should take 20 working days as it was published on the Council’s website. He therefore sent e-mails seeking an update on 1 and 11 December. The Council has clarified that this timescale relates to corporate complaints. Code of Conduct complaints do not have any set timescales and are governed by the procedures set out in paragraphs 14 and 15 (above).
22. Mr X said the Council replied on 15 December, apologised for the delay and explained it was due to staff shortages and increased complaints. Mr X said the Council told him it was having a consultation meeting in early January after which it would provide an outcome.
23. Mr X sent a further e-mail on 21 December seeking an update.
24. Mr X says he did not receive a response. He sent a final e-mail to the Council on 13 January. Mr X said he did not receive a response and so complained to us on 23 January.
25. On 20 February, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said the Council had determined there had not been a breach as M’s alleged comment had been deleted before anyone else could have seen it.
26. The Council told us that:
• Mr X’s complaint was considered at the informal stage, by the Chair of Standards Committee in consultation with other members of the Committee, the IP, and the MO.
• The Council had obtained a statement from Mr X and M’s response to the complaint together with other necessary evidence to reach a decision.
• The Chair in consultation determined that because M’s original comments were removed so promptly, they could not have brought the Council into disrepute.
• The Chair felt able to reach this conclusion noting Mr X did not provide evidence of the original comment and noting M’s evidence of the replaced comment.
• It accepted there was an initial delay between receipt of Mr X’s complaint on 24 October 2022 and its eventual referral to the MO on 15 December due to staff shortage and high complaint volume.
• It said subsequent delays in the process were due to M being on annual leave when it approached them for comment and sensitive issues relating to disclosure which had to be addressed before it could reach a finding.
• It did not provide any evidence to show it responded to Mr X’s emails on 21 December 2022 and 13 January 2023.
• It has amended its process for dealing with Code of Conduct complaints including a 14-day timescale for Member responses and more regular Chair of Standards meetings to ensure complaints are addressed promptly.

Was there fault and did it cause injustice?

i) Mr X says the Council did not deal with his complaint about a member breaching the Member Code of Conduct.

27. The evidence shows the Council correctly followed the process in its Member Code of Conduct complaints procedure as set out in paragraphs 14 and 15 (above), before reaching its decision. I do not find any fault in relation to this point. I understand Mr X does not agree with the outcome, but we have no power to criticise a decision where there has been no fault in the process.

ii) Mr X says the Council delayed responding to his communications and providing a complaint outcome.

28. Mr X submitted his complaint to the Council on 24 October 2022. The Council did not refer the matter to the MO until mid-December, approximately 8 weeks later.
29. The Council said the delay was due to staff shortage and high volume of complaints. I note its code of conduct complaints process does not have any set timescales. However, 8 weeks is inconsistent with our guidance on good administrative practice as set out in paragraph 16 (above). I also note the Council only explained the reasons for the delay because of Mr X’s chasing emails in December. The Council has not explained why it did not respond to Mr X’s further emails. And, it could have easily explained the delay was in part due to M’s leave and disclosure issues.
30. The delay in processing Mr X’s complaint, failure to update Mr X and respond to his emails is poor customer service and communication. It caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration about whether his complaint was being dealt with. This is injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. The Council explained it has already introduced service improvements for its code of conduct complaints process (paragraph 26). This is a partial remedy.
32. Within a month of my final decision, the Council should also:
• Write to Mr X and apologise for the avoidable uncertainty and frustration caused to him by its initial delay in referring his complaint to the Monitoring Officer and poor communication in handling his complaint.
• Provide us with evidence of amendments to its process for dealing with Code of Conduct complaints including a 14-day timescale for Member responses and more regular Chair of Standards meetings.
• Consider our Guidance on Good Administrative Practice and remind staff handling Code of Conduct complaints to provide timely responses to complaints, complainant emails and updates in the event of delays.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I find the Council correctly addressed Mr X’s complaint about a breach of its members Code of Conduct but there were delays in referring his complaint to the Monitoring Officer and keeping him updated about delays. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the avoidable frustration. It has also introduced service improvements for its code of conduct complaints policy and should provide us with evidence of these. It should also remind staff handling Code of Conduct complaints of the need to provide timely responses to complaints, complainant emails and updates in the event of delays.
35. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman