Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to disqualify a councillor and delay in responding to the complaint. We cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. And we consider an apology to be a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Ms X, complains the Council:
• continues to employ a councillor despite him being convicted of breaking the law
• failed to follow guidelines for councillor or employee code of conduct; and
• failed to respond to her complaint

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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X complained to the Council that it continued to employ a councillor who has been convicted of breaking the law. She says the councillor had obviously breached the code of conduct and wants him dismissed.
6. Mr X also alleged the councillor had misused Council resources.
7. After a significant delay the Council responded. It apologised for the delay. It explained the Council has no powers to disqualify or suspend an elected councillor unless they have received a prison sentence of no less than three months without the opportunity to pay a fine instead. This is set out in section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972.
8. After further correspondence with Ms X, the Council explained again that it has no power to remove an elected councillor. It also confirmed that the arrangements for dealing with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor cannot achieve the removal or suspension of a councillor.
9. The Council confirmed it is waiting for information from the police before it can start an assessment of allegation that a councillor misused Council resources.
10. The Council is correct in that it has no mechanism for removing an elected councillor unless the circumstances meet the requirement set out in the Local Government Act 1972 s80. Councillors are elected officials and not employees who can be dismissed.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we cannot achieve the removal of an elected councillor which is the outcome Ms X is ultimately seeking.
12. We consider the Council’s apology to be a suitable remedy for the delay in its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman