Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a councillor. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the complaint to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about a councillor (the Councillor). He said the Councillor failed to follow the correct process after they were elected. He disagrees with the Council’s consideration of his complaint. Mr X also complained the Council shared his details with the Councillor.
2. Mr X wants the Council to decide if the Councillor breached the regulation. He also wants an apology, and for the Council to improve its data protection policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council’s Monitoring Officer is responsible for considering allegations that an elected member has breached the Members' Code of Conduct. Each council has different rules for dealing with complaints about code of conduct breaches.
9. 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 councillor 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.
10. I have reviewed the Monitoring Officer’s consideration of Mr X’s complaint. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s complaint in line with the Council’s procedure. They considered all available evidence including comments from Mr X and information received from the Independent Person. Based on the evidence available, the Monitoring Officer could not decide whether there had been a breach of conduct. Instead, they made ‘no finding’ on Mr X’s allegation. The Monitoring Officer’s report sets out its reasons for this, and why the matter did not merit further investigation.
11. Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, we will not investigate this complaint. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify our involvement.
12. Mr X also complained about the Council’s decision to share his details with the Councillor. He said that was a breach of data protection. It is reasonable for Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioners Office if he believes the Council has breached data protection.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the complaint to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman