Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council considered a councillor complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to properly investigate her complaint about financial irregularities and the conduct of a councillor towards her. She said she had not got satisfactory answers and she does not agree the monitoring officer’s suggestion of mediation is appropriate.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The Monitoring Officer considered whether the complaint met the legal jurisdiction criteria test. This included considering whether the allegations made could, if proven, amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct. The Monitoring Officer found some of parts of Ms X’s complaint failed that test.
8. The Monitoring officer went on to consider the local assessment test and found some parts of Ms X’s complaint failed that test because the complaints were made too late, or there was insufficient evidence, or the complaint had previously been considered.
9. The Monitoring Officer found two complaints passed both tests and could be investigated:
• arrangements for a grant for a recreational facility. The Monitoring Officer made some enquiries, which established the councillor complained about had wrongly stated publicly that funds had been secured when they were only provisional. However, no funds had been paid and the Parish Council would need to approve the project before that happened;
• arranging a bar for an event: The Monitoring Officer found the councillor complained about did not have the authority to make the arrangements. Whether they had used their position to create an advantage for the third party or for improper motives could only be established by a full investigation.
10. After consulting in line with the process, the Monitoring Officer decided to recommend to the Parish Council that the complaint was resolved through mediation on the grounds that the use of public funds for a full investigation was not warranted.
11. The Monitoring Officer followed the Council’s procedure for considering Code of Conduct complaints and provided a clear reason for their decision in writing. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement so we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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