Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Deputy Monitoring Officer dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a parish councillor. We are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Nor can we achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about how the Council’s Deputy Monitoring Officer dealt with his complaint about the conduct of a parish councillor.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and on the Council’s website.
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 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 councillors complained about. 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 Deputy Monitoring Officer dealt with the matter in line with the Council’s rules for code of conduct complaints. The Deputy Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns. They contacted the parish council and the parish clerk. There is no requirement the process for dealing with code of conduct complaints which forbids them from seeking information from the parish clerk. Also, although they may seek further information from the complainant, there is no requirement for them to do so.
8. The Deputy Monitoring Officer considered the complaint and consulted the Council’s Independent Person. They explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the way the Deputy Monitoring Officer made their decision. But the Deputy Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement in this regard. As they properly considered Mr X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Also, we cannot achieve Mr X’s desired outcome from the complaint, which is for the Monitoring Officer and Deputy Monitoring Officer to face disciplinary proceedings. The law restricts us from involving ourselves in personnel matters, which include disciplinary proceedings.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• an investigation is unlikely to find fault in the way the Council investigated his complaint that a parish councillor breached the code of conduct; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman