Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate a complaint that a councillor breached the Council’s code of conduct and refused to allow Mrs X to be interviewed at home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made these decisions to justify an investigation. Also it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office with her complaint about the Council withholding information.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
• refused to investigate her complaint of harassment by another councillor
• refused her request for a meeting to take place at her home as a reasonable adjustment; and
• failed to send her copies of the complaints, evidence, and screenshots which she has requested.

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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Local Authorities have a duty to appoint a Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure the authority, its officers, and members keep the highest standards 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 the 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 does not agree with it.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer dealt with Mrs X’s complaint about another councillor in line with the Council’s rules for code of conduct complaints before deciding not to take further action. The Monitoring Officer considered Mrs X’s concerns and advised they did not consider the complaint should be investigated. The Monitoring Officer also consulted the Independent Person.
8. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the complaint should not be investigated, to the police having investigated, and concluded there is no substantial evidence. As the Monitoring Officer properly considered Mrs X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Mrs X also complains the Council has failed to agree to her request to interview her at home as a reasonable adjustment. The Council declined explaining why it would not agree to her request. It also offered for Mrs X to attend the interview meeting online, meaning she would not have to visit the Council offices.
10. Therefore, on the information I have seen, there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of Mrs X’s request.
11. Finally, Mrs X says the Council has failed to provide information she has requested. It is also open for her to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if she feels the Council is withholding information from her that she is entitled to see.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decisions not to investigate her complaint about a councillor and not to interview her at home. Also, it is reasonable to expect her to contact the ICO with her concerns about access to information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman