Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint that a councillor breached the Council’s Code of Conduct. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council considered the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how the Council dealt with her complaint about the conduct of several councillors. Mrs X says the Council failed to properly consider information she provided, was not completed within the Council’s timeframe and that its consideration of her complaint was not independent because the Monitoring Officer is an employee of the Council.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils have a duty to designate a Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of council decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure that the council, its officers and members maintain the highest standards of conduct. Each council has different procedures for dealing with complaints about code of conduct breaches.
7. 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.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer fully considered Mrs X’s complaint and the supporting evidence she submitted in support of it and did so in line with the Council’s procedures. In accordance with the Council’s procedure, the Monitoring Officer consulted with the Independent Person before making the decision not to proceed with an investigation and fully explained the reasons for this.
9. Whilst I accept Ms X strongly disagrees with this decision, the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement in this regard. As the Monitoring Officer properly considered Ms X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and I will therefore not investigate Ms X’s complaint.
10. Mrs X complains about delays to the process. However, any injustice caused by any delay would not have caused a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman