Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a complaint about councillor conduct as there is insufficient evidence of fault, or fault causing a significant injustice, to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained to the Council about the actions of a local councillor. Mr X considers the Council’s complaint response is unjust, one-sided and unreasonable. Mr X complains also about delay, that he was not allowed to have the decision reviewed and that important information was not shared with the Independent Person. Mr X says this has been distressing and has impacted on his mental health. Mr X wants the Council to apply its code of conduct in a more open and transparent manner and for remedial action to be taken against the councillor.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background and my assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council that a councillor blocked him on a community social media page which meant Mr X could not see the councillor’s posts about local issues on that site. Mr X says this was done deliberately as he had challenged the councillor publicly on another matter.
8. On this point, the Council decided there was no breach of the code of conduct as in its view, the councillor was acting in a personal capacity in deciding to block Mr X from accessing their personal, social media profile. In the Council’s view, the circumstances in which a councillor decides to block someone, is a matter for that councillor, not the Council.
9. The Council was entitled to make this decision and we cannot question it in the absence of fault in the decision-making process. That Mr X disagrees with it does not provide such evidence and I have not seen other evidence to suggest fault in the way it was made.
10. On two other matters relating to the community social media page, the Council decided the councillor was likely to be acting in their official capacity, when they posted about Council planning matters. That Mr X could not see these posts due to the councillor having blocked him, did not give rise to a breach of the code of conduct, in the Council’s view, in respect of transparency, impartiality and bringing the Council into disrepute. The Council’s reasoning for this was that the information shared on the community page was freely available to members of the public through the Council’s website.
11. Again, it is for the Council to make such determinations and we could only challenge if there was clear associated fault, but notwithstanding this, I do not consider in any case that Mr X is significantly impacted by the actions of the councillor or the Council’s handling of this point when the information in question was in the public domain and available elsewhere.
12. Mr X says the Council has denied him the right to seek a review of its decision which is contrary to the Council’s published complaint procedure.
13. Mr X, I believe, is referring to the Council’s corporate complaint procedure, which does make provision for a review. The Council’s procedure for dealing with councillor conduct complaints does not. There is no indication of fault by the Council here.
14. Mr X says the Council’s Independent Person (IP) was not given full details of a complaint he had made previously about the same councillor and which Mr X considers had a bearing on the complaint in question.
15. I do not consider the section in the Council’s complaint response entitled ‘Independent Person’s Advice’, does necessarily point to this. However, even if the IP was not given full details of Mr X’s previous complaints, I do not consider this represents fault that would call into question the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s complaint. The IP gave a detailed breakdown of their view on the merits of the complaint in question which was the task in hand for the IP.
16. Whilst there may have been delay by the Council in providing its response, and I recognise Mr X’s frustration at this, I do not consider this represents a level of injustice to a degree that would warrant our further involvement.
17. We have no remit to recommend the Council imposes sanctions on its councillors and so we cannot achieve this part of Mr X’s desired outcome.
18. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault, or fault causing an injustice to Mr X, to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman