Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s member conduct complaint as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council or that any fault caused Mr X a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has told him there is no right for a review of its decision on his member conduct complaint. Mr X wants the complaint to be reviewed.

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, or fault causing significant injustice to justify investigating, or there is another body better placed to deal with the matter (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council that a Council member posted a defamatory message on social media about his faith, which Mr X feels was meant to incite racial hatred. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision not to proceed with his complaint and that its complaint procedure allows no opportunity for the decision to be reviewed.
7. While I recognise that Mr X was upset by the social media post, from our perspective, this would not represent a level of injustice significant enough to justify our further involvement. We have limited resources and must direct them to the most serious cases.
8. As the substantive matter would not warrant our investigation, it follows that how the Council responded to this matter also does not cause Mr X a level of personal loss or harm that would justify our involvement. However, even if we did investigate, I consider it is unlikely we would find fault. The Council is entitled to decide not to allow appeals of its decision on member conduct complaints and we cannot be critical of this. It is also for the Council to decide if a complaint meets the requirements of its policy to warrant further investigation. In this case, the Council decided not as in its view the member in question was not acting from that position in respect of the conduct complained about. Unless there is evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of this, then we cannot be critical of the merits of this decision. I have not seen evidence of such fault.
9. Mr X’s allegation that the Council member’s comments were intended to incite racial hatred is a matter for the police as this is potentially a criminal matter. This is not something we could investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault or fault causing a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman