Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaints about the conduct of Councillors or the Council’s handling of allegations about her partner because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X made three complaints, as follows:
1. a complaint about Councillor 1, Councillor 2 and Councillor 3 in relation to social media posts;
2. a complaint about Councillor 3 relating to comments made to Councillor 4 about funding for an organisation she is involved with; and
3. a complaint about the way the Council handled allegations involving her partner.
2. Ms X said she felt bullied, which affected her health, and the poor conduct also affected her business.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))

4. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Complaint a)

7. Ms X complained about social media posts made by Councillor 1, Councillor 2 and Councillor 3. Ms X said she posted an ironic post on social media, which the Councillors responded to, deliberating misrepresenting what Ms X had said. Ms X said the posts also identified her and encouraged others seeing the posts to take action against her, which led to her receiving messages harassing her and her partner.
8. The Council’s Monitoring Officer considered the complaint, sought a response from the Councillors concerned and consulted with the Independent person. They decided the Councillors were making the social media posts in their personal capacity and not as elected members of the Council and the posts did not identify them as Councillors. Since they were acting in a personal capacity, there was no potential breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct (the Code) that needed further investigation.
9. The Council accepts it decided this in May 2024, but overlooked sending a report to Ms X until our involvement prompted it to do so in December 2024.

Complaint b)

10. Ms X complained that Councillor 3 had made a comment to Councillor 4 that they would prevent funding being awarded to an organisation Ms X is involved with. Ms X said that, in doing this, Councillor 3 was abusing their power.
11. The Council’s Monitoring Officer considered the complaint, sought a response from Councillor 3, and consulted the Independent person. They decided there was no evidence to show a breach of the Code. They wrote to Ms X in October 2024 to explain their reasons for not investigating further. This included that Councillor 3 had no recollection of the conversation, which Ms X had not witnessed, and that Councillor 3 had no responsibilities in relation to the funding in question.
12. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it was conversation between members and the Commentary to the Code allows members to constructively challenge and express concern about decisions and processes. Councillor 4 made no complaint about it and, given the decision was not to investigate, the Monitoring Officer did not consider it necessary to ask Councillor 4 about it.

My assessment – complaints a) and b)

13. The Council’s Monitoring Officer is responsible for considering complaints that an elected member has breached the Members’ Code of Conduct. Each council has different rules for dealing with complaints about code of conduct breaches.
14. The Ombudsman does not provide an appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decisions. We are also unable to investigate or comment on actions of 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 disagrees with it.
15. In this case, the Monitoring Officer followed the Council’s process for considering Code of Conduct complaints and provided clear reasons for their decision in writing. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement so we will not consider these complaints further. Whilst there was a delay in responding to complaint a), this did not cause a sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.

Complaint c)

16. Ms X also complained about the Council’s handling of allegations made against her partner, Mr Y. She said there were procedural failings, such as not providing Mr Y with full details of the allegations made.
17. I have considered the documents Ms X has provided in support of this part of her complaint. I note that:
• allegations of sexually harassment were made about Mr Y by Council officers that required investigation, and the Council decided to suspend his access to its buildings pending the conclusion of that investigation;
• the Council followed ACAS guidance on sexual harassment and on conducting workplace investigations. It considered relevant evidence, accounts from relevant parties, offered to hold an investigatory meeting with Mr Y at which it said it would share more details about the allegation and consulted the Independent person;
• the Council wrote to Mr Y with the outcome of its investigations, which Mr Y declined to participate in, and also responded to his complaint about the way the investigation was handled;
• when investigating the allegations, the Council was acting as both owner of the building in which the alleged sexual harassment had taken place and also as employer of the officers reporting the harassment.

My assessment

18. We are not an appeal body. We can consider a Council’s decision-making but, in the absence of fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
19. On the basis of the documents seen, the Council has followed a proper process and there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify our involvement. In addition, although Mr Y was not an employee of the Council, it is so similar to an employment that we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman