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

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains a councillor breached the code of conduct during planning committee meetings.

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 Mrs X.
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 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 Deputy Monitoring Officer dealt with the matter in line with the Council’s rules for code of conduct complaints before deciding not to take further action. The Deputy Monitoring Officer considered Mrs X’s concerns and the evidence available and explained why they considered part of the complaint should not be investigated. However part of Mrs X’s complaint was referred to the Council’s Hearing Panel for further consideration, in line with the Council’s procedures for dealing with complaints about councillors.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the decisions of the Deputy Monitoring Officer and the Hearing Panel. But the Deputy Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide a formal investigation was not necessary for part of the complaint. Likewise, having considered the information available, the Hearing Panel was entitled to decide not to take further action.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because without evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her complaints, we cannot criticise the decisions made.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman