Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a complaint that a councillor breached the code of conduct. The Council has acknowledged the delay in dealing with the complaint was unacceptable and has apologised for this. The Councillor is no longer an elected member, and we cannot achieve part of the outcome the complainant is seeking. We do not consider an Ombudsman investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to investigate his complaint that a councillor had breached the Council’s code of conduct. He says the Council;
• failed to assess the complaint within twenty days as required by its own policy
• eventually investigated the wrong complaint; and
• victim blamed the complainant.
2. He wants the complaint reviewed by an independent person, preferably from a different council. He also wants the person who assessed his complaint suspended from dealing with complaints until they have been retrained.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council accepts there were unacceptable delays in dealing with Mr X’s complaint. Part of the delay was due to the Council not being able to consider the complaint during the ‘purdah’ period in the run up to local elections. However, the Council did not advise Mr X of this sooner. The Council says the further delay was due to staffing issues.
7. The significant delay in dealing with Mr X’s complaint is fault. However, the Council has acknowledged this and apologised to Mr X.
8. Mr X also complains the Council failed to consider the correct complaint and has “victim blamed” him.
9. I have reviewed the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint and understand the Councillor complained of is no longer a Council Member, having failed to be re-elected in May 2023. The Council has no power to sanction a former Councillor.
10. Mr X wants the person who dealt with his complaint to be suspended from further complaints until they have received further training. The Ombudsman cannot intervene in staffing matters. We cannot require a person to be suspended from their role, this is a personnel issue which outside our jurisdiction.
11. Having reviewed the information, I am satisfied the Council is fully aware of the fault in the delay in assessing Mr X’s complaint about a councillor. I consider its apology to be a satisfactory remedy to this part of the complaint. However, the subject councillor is no longer a Member of the Council so the Council cannot take any action against them, even if a breach of the code of conduct was found. Nor can we achieve part of the outcome Mr X is seeking. I therefore do not consider that an investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman