Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his code of conduct complaint against Councillor Y and its refusal to accept a self-referral complaint. Based on the evidence seen so far there was no fault in how the Council’s monitoring officer investigated the complaint or in its decision not to accept the self-referral. However, there were significant delays in concluding the investigation and reaching a decision which caused Mr X frustration. It should apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment to recognise that frustration.

The complaint

1. Mr X, a former councillor complains about the Council’s handling of his code of conduct complaint about another councillor, Y. Mr X says he has experienced significant delays and poor communication. He also says the Council refused to accept a self-referral complaint after Y made accusations against him.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him distress, uncertainty and has impacted on his reputation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided.
7. I considered information from the Council.
8. I considered the relevant Councillors Code of Conduct and the Council’s Process to deal with complaints received in relation to the Councillors Code of Conduct.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

10. The Localism Act 2011 places a duty on councils to handle cases about councillor conduct and standards.
11. Under sections 28(6) and (7) of the Act, councils now must have in place “arrangements” for investigating allegations a councillor has failed to comply with its code of conduct.
12. It is for the Council to decide the details of its code of conduct and the arrangements for dealing with complaints about member conduct. The code must be ‘consistent with the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership.
13. The arrangements for dealing with complaints must include the appointment of a least one Independent Person (IP). The IP has an advisory role and must be consulted before the council takes a decision on an allegation it has investigated. The views of the IP can also be sought by the authority at any other stage after receipt of a complaint.
14. Complaints that a member has failed to comply with the code of conduct should be dealt with in accordance with the Council’s agreed procedures. The council officer responsible for councillor conduct is called the Monitoring Officer. They will usually carry out an initial assessment of complaints and decide whether it merits formal investigation. This is normally done in consultation with the IP.

The Council’s code of conduct procedures

15. The Council’s code of conduct procedures state the monitoring officer will review the complaint and decide whether it merits further investigation, whether it can be resolved informally or whether to reject the complaint. The monitoring officer will complete the initial assessment within 21 working days of receipt of the complaint.
16. Where possible the monitoring officer will resolve complaints informally. The subject of the complaint (the subject) will be sent a copy of the complaint and asked to make any representations within 14 working days. If the monitoring officer considers, after consultation with the IP, that there has been a breach of the code and could be resolved without formal investigation, they will suggest a resolution.
17. The monitoring officer will report with full reasons the outcome of the complaint to the complainant within 14 working days of receiving the subject’s views
18. The Council’s code of conduct procedures do not mention anything specifically about how it considers self-referral complaints or about how it decides about the publication of outcomes.

What happened

19. The following chronology provides a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It does not include every detail of what happened.
20. In 2022 Mr X, who was then a councillor made a complaint that Councillor Y had breached the code of conduct. The monitoring officer upheld the complaint and recommended Y carry out some re-training on the code of conduct.
21. Following the outcome of this complaint Mr X says Councillor Y alleged that he (Mr X) had put pressure on the monitoring officer which meant they came to the wrong conclusion about the complaint. There is no evidence any formal complaint was made against Mr X; however he felt the allegations from Councillor Y might tarnish his reputation. Mr X decided not to stand for Councillor following this.
22. In February 2023 Mr X made another complaint against Councillor Y about continued and similar breaches of the code of conduct. Due to issues around annual leave and other reasons the Council asked a lawyer, Officer C at another Council, Council B to consider Mr X’s complaint.
23. At the end of March 2023 Councillor Y gave their response to the complaint. Mr X also provided some additional information to support his complaint.
24. There appears little action was taken between March and July on Mr X’s complaint. The Council said this was because of issues at Council B including staffing problems, sickness and management of local elections.
25. Officer C, after liaising with the IP issued a decision notice for Mr X’s complaint against Councillor Y towards the end of July 2023 which found they had breached the code of conduct. The monitoring officer sent the decision notice to Councillor Y in August 2023. The monitoring officer referred the matter to its Standards Board to consider an appropriate sanction. The monitoring officer said the Board would consider whether to the publish the decision notice. The Council said this marked the conclusion of the informal investigation which took 57 days longer than the timescales outlined in the procedures. The monitoring officer provided Mr X with an update.
26. In January 2024 Mr X submitted a self-referral code of conduct complaint about the allegations made against him by Councillor Y. The Council said it refused to accept this as it does not accept self-referral complaints and Mr X was no longer a councillor. Mr X also said Councillor Y was continuing to breach the code of conduct.
27. Records show the monitoring officer met with Councillor Y in January 2024 and provided informal advice about their future conduct.
28. Mr X complained to us in February 2024 about the delay in dealing with the code of conduct complaint about Councillor Y and the refusal to accept his self-referral complaint.
29. In April 2024 the Standards Board met to discuss Councillor Y’s case. The monitoring officer also referred themselves to the Standards Board so it could scrutinise their handling of the case over the last year. Mr X was invited to partially attend the meeting where the Board discussed the complaint but not about how the monitoring officer had handled the matter. Mr X however was unable to attend and instead sent a written submission.
30. The Standards Board did not give Councillor Y any further sanctions above the warning provided to them by the monitoring officer already. The Standards Board approved publication of the decision notice against Councillor Y. The Board did not come to a view on the monitoring officer’s handling of the case, instead referring it to the Higher Council Committee at a later date.
31. Mr X remained unhappy and asked us to consider the matter, specifically the monitoring officer’s handling of the case and the refusal to accept the self-referral.
32. The Council told us it took full responsibility for the delays in dealing with Mr X’s complaints, blaming various staffing issues.

My findings

33. We are not an appeal against monitoring officer decisions, and we cannot investigate or comment on the actions of a councillors. In this case the monitoring officer accepted Mr X’s complaints in February 2023 and ultimately decided, in conjunction with the IP to deal it informally by providing Councillor Y with advice. It referred the matter to the Standards Board and the Board decided no further sanctions were appropriate. This was all in line with the Council’s code of conduct procedures and is not fault.
34. However, the matter took far too long to resolve and communication with Mr X throughout was poor. The Council’s procedures state the whole investigation should be completed within 50 working days and it took the monitoring officer nearly 112 working days to make a decision. It then took a further eight months for the Standards Board to consider it. Therefore, the matter took 14 months to conclude which is a significant delay and fault. It caused Mr X some frustration and uncertainty.
35. Part of Mr X’s complaint was about the Council’s refusal to accept his self-referral complaint. There is nothing in any law or guidance I have seen which says a Council must accept self-referral complaints. It is for the monitoring officer to decide whether to accept a complaint and based on the information Mr X provided, they decided not to accept it. This is a decision the monitoring officer is entitled to take and is not fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 to recognise the distress and frustration caused by the delays in handling his code of conduct complaint.
37. Within two months of the final decision the Council agreed to provide the Ombudsman with the outcome of the Higher Council Committee’s consideration of the monitoring officer’s handling of his case. The Council should outline to us what action it intends to take to prevent future delays in code of conduct complaints.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I completed this investigation. I found fault the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman