Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of councillors. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered any significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of three councillors. Ms X says the Council has not properly investigated the complaints received. She has also raised concerns about how long it took the Council to investigate the matter and says there has been a lack of transparency.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Local Authorities have a duty to designate a Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure that the authority, its officers and members maintain the highest standards of conduct. Each council has different rules 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. In this case, the Council received many complaints about the conduct of three councillors during a meeting. The Monitoring Officer decided the issues raised should be referred for independent investigation. An investigator was appointed, and an investigation report was produced for each of the councillors complained about. The investigation concluded the councillors had not breached the member’s code of conduct. The Monitoring Officer consulted the Independent Person and accepted the investigator’s findings.
8. Ms X says not all the complaints received about the councillors were considered and she is concerned about how long it took the Council to look into the issues. But it is clear from the investigation reports and the Monitoring Officer’s decisions that many complaints were received about the same matter. I also do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice in this regard as the issues she raised were addressed in the investigation reports. I do not consider that any injustice suffered because of any delays is significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
9. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s findings. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the code of conduct had not been breached. As the Council properly considered Ms X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Ms X has also not suffered any significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman