Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with her complaint about the conduct of a councillor. Ms X says she has made several complaints about the conduct of the councillor and the town council, but the Monitoring Officer has refused to investigate her concerns. Ms X says the issues have affected her mental health.

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))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
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 town council or 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.
8. In this case, the Council’s rules for dealing with code of conduct complaints say when a complaint is first received the Monitoring Officer will determine if it is valid. To decide if the complaint is valid the Monitoring Officer will consider if the code of conduct applies to the issues raised. The Council’s criteria also says a complaint will not usually be investigated if there is not enough evidence to justify an investigation.
9. The Monitoring officer said they would not take further action in relation to Ms X’s complaint without further evidence to support the allegations. The Monitoring Officer also said they could not consider complaints about the town council as a whole or its decisions and complaints about the town council clerk fell outside the code of conduct.
10. Ms X says she has provided information to support her complaint. However, the Monitoring Officer considered this, but decided there was insufficient evidence to show the code of conduct had been breached.
11. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide further action should not be taken based on the evidence available. As the Monitoring Officer 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

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman