Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s appointment of two interim Independent Persons without advertising the positions to the public. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council acted unlawfully in appointing two people to act as Independent Persons for six months without advertising the positions to the public as the Localism Act 2011 requires. He says time and money has been wasted in having to repeat the appointment process and that he would have applied for the position if it had been advertised first.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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:

• 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 Mr X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council about its appointment of two interim Independent Persons for six months without advertising the positions to the public. The Council told Mr X that the relevant legislation did not expressly exclude interim appointments while permanent appointments are filled and that there were no costs incurred which were a waste of time and money as Mr X had alleged. Mr X disputes the Council’s view that interim appointments are permitted under the Localism Act.
6. We do not investigate every complaint we receive. We are a publicly funded body with an obligation to use the funds allocated to us in an effective, efficient and economic manner. In this case the injustice caused to Mr X by the fault he alleges is insufficient to warrant a formal investigation by the Ombudsman and we will not pursue the complaint.
7. Mr X says he would have applied for one of the earlier positions had they been advertised to the public. However, while this may have been the case, we cannot conclude now that Mr X would have been successful in his application. Moreover, it would have been open to him to have applied once the permanent positions were advertised a few months later.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman