Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct by a councillor. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about a local councillor failing to reply to his calls and emails after he had agreed to look into his complaint about an insurance claim. He says the Councillor failed to meet the standards of the Code of Conduct and should stand down.

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 continue 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council did not properly investigate his complaint about a councillor who agreed to make enquiries about his complaint on an insurance claim but failed to respond to him. He says the councillor ceased communicating with him and believes the Council deliberately instructed the councillor to end his involvement with Mr X.
6. The Council’s Monitoring Officer investigated Mr X’s complaint and the councillor was interviewed. He maintained that after agreeing to look into Mr X’s complaint he was unable to do more because it concerned an insurance claim for pothole damage and these are dealt with by insurers or the courts to establish liability. At the same time he experienced a family bereavement and did not have any further involvement with Mr X for personal reasons. The Monitoring officer concluded that the failure to respond to Mr X after initial conversations was an administrative error and was not deliberate rudeness or evidence of any third-party influence.
7. We do not provide an appeals service for complaints about members’ conduct, but we can consider how a council handled a complaint about such a matter. There is no evidence to suggest that the Monitoring Officer failed to properly consider the complaint and that the councillor was interviewed to have an opportunity to explain his conduct.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct by a councillor. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman