Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a complaint that councillors had breached the Council’s code of conduct. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision that a councillor did not breach the code of conduct.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Mr X complained a councillor breached the code of conduct by involving themselves in a planning application and favouring one constituent over another.
8. The Council’s senior lawyer assessed the complaint according to the Council’s arrangements for dealing with member complaints. Mr X says the lawyer failed to obtain all relevant information from other Council departments. He says the Council also failed to provide this information when he asked for it under a freedom of information request.
9. The Council’s arrangements for assessing complaints about councillors says:

“Those involved in the consideration of a complaint will not provide assistance to the Complainant in making a case by identifying information that would support the complaint.”

10. Mr X confirms he has already complained to the Information Commissioner’s Officer about the way the Council dealt with his request for information. We consider that investigation of this point would not lead to a different outcome.
11. The Council sought the opinion of the Independent Person on Mr X’s complaint. The Independent Person says they believe the councillor breached the code of conduct. However, the lawyer’s assessment report addresses each point and explains why they disagree with this view.
12. I understand Mr X believes the Council should have sought more information to support his complaint. However, as confirmed above the Council’s arrangements specifically state those involved in the complaint will not do so. The senior lawyer assessed Mr X’s complaint and decided the councillor did not breach the code of conduct.
13. Mr X asked for a review of the decision. The Deputy Monitoring Officer reviewed the decision according to the Council’s published procedures. The review upheld the original decision. Mr X says the Council’s procedures for dealing with code of conduct complaints are flawed. However, the Council has followed the adopted procedures. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Without evidence of a failure to follow the published procedures we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman