Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of a complaint she made about the conduct of a local Ward Councillor, causing her distress. We did not find fault in the Council’s consideration of Ms X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of a complaint she made about the conduct of a local Ward Councillor.
2. Ms X said the Ward Councillor showed bias over a planning application she made. The Ward Councillor ignored Ms X’s emails and requests for contact, and then spoke against her application at a planning committee meeting.
3. Ms X said the Ward Council lied to the Council to cover up their actions, and the Council did not investigate properly.
4. Ms X suffered distress as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I investigated the Council’s consideration of Mrs X’s complaint about the conduct of a Ward Councillor. I did not investigate matters surrounding a planning committee meeting, or the planning committee’s decision on Mrs X’s application.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mrs X provided.
9. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
10. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Member code of conduct

11. Under sections 28(6) and (7) of the Localism Act 2011, councils must have arrangements in place to investigate allegations that a member or co-opted member of the authority has failed to comply with its code of conduct.
12. It is for each council to decide the details of its code of conduct and the arrangements for dealing with complaints about member conduct. However, the code must be consistent with the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership (known as the Nolan principles).

The Council’s arrangements for considering member code of conduct complaints

13. A complaint must be made in writing to the Monitoring Officer (MO). The MO will then notify the member who is the subject of the complaint. The subject member may make written representations which the MO must consider when deciding how to deal with the complaint.
14. The MO will make an initial assessment on whether the complaint merits investigation or other action.
15. The MO will reject the complaint if it fails one of the following tests:
• The complaint is not against a named member of the Council or Town Council in the district.
• The member was not in office at the time of the alleged misconduct.
• The complaint, if proven, would not be a breach of the code of conduct.
16. The MO will then consider certain criteria to decide whether a complaint should be accepted for investigation, dealt with informally, or rejected. Of relevance to this complaint, the criteria include:
• Whether the complainant is about something that happened so long ago that those involved are unlikely to remember it clearly enough to provide credible evidence, or where the lapse of time means there would be little benefit taking action now.
• Whether the allegation discloses a potential breach of the code of conduct, but the complaint is not serious enough to merit any action and, the resources needed to investigate are disproportionate to the allegations, or where there is no public benefit in investigating.
17. In appropriate cases, the MO may seek to resolve the complaint informally. This may involve the member accepting their conduct was unacceptable and offering an apology or taking other steps.

What happened

18. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
19. Ms X raised a complaint with the Council about the conduct of local Ward Councillor in April 2024. I will refer to this Ward Councillor as Councillor One. Ms X also complained about the way the Council’s planning committee decided a planning application she made. Ms X said:
• Councillor One spoke against her application at the committee meeting, but focused on matters that were separate from the permission she sought. She felt this influenced the committee’s decision.
• Councillor One showed bias and obstructive behaviour, ignoring her emails and requests to speak to him since 2021.
• Two other Ward Councillors also failed to respond to her emails. I will refer to them as Councillor’s Two and Three.
• As elected members, Councillors must serve their constituents in a conscientious and diligent manner which promotes public confidence. Failing to respond to emails and telephone messages does not do this.
• She submitted several planning applications for her property which the planning committee refused, despite planning officers recommending some for approval. She considered Councillors were not keeping an open mind or being fair.
20. The Council’s MO responded to Ms X’s member complaint in June 2024.
21. The MO said Councillor Two made clear they did not support Ms X’s planning application and met residents to confirm this. Councillor Three accepted they did not respond to an email from Ms X. They said this was an oversight and they apologised.
22. The MO said it was unfortunate Councillors Two and Three did not respond to Ms X, but this did not fall under the code of conduct for members. The MO said failing to respond to a single email would not warrant sanction. The Council did not accept this part of Ms X’s complaint under the member code of conduct.
23. In relation to Councillor One, the MO said the Council would not normally accept complaints going back so far that those involved are unlikely to clearly remember enough to provide credible evidence, or where the lapse of time means there is little benefit taking action. They said Ms X’s communications dating back to 2021 were not accepted. Councillor One recalled discussing Ms X’s planning application with someone, but could not recall who.
24. The MO also said Councillor One recalled telling the person they spoke to that they did not support the application. They agreed with residents who objected to it. Councillor One presumed this was Ms X, as the applicant. Councillor One therefore said, having made their position clear, they would not respond to emails or voicemails going forwards unless there were outstanding questions.
25. The MO said, as Councillor One made their position clear about Ms X’s planning application, and she did not raise any new issues, the position Councillor One took appeared to be reasonable in the circumstances. The MO said this part of Ms X’s complaint was also not accepted under the member code of conduct.
26. The MO said Councillor One was entitled to speak against Ms X’s application at the planning committee meeting, as they agreed with residents who objected to the plans. The Council did not uphold this part of the complaint.
27. The MO said councillors cannot always serve all residents in their ward. There will often be conflicts over planning proposals, and councillors may support or object to an application. Just because a councillor takes a particular position does not mean they have breached the code of conduct.

Analysis

28. The MO decided not to accept Ms X’s complaint under the member code of conduct. That was because some events were several years old, some actions did not warrant sanction, and some actions were considered reasonable in the circumstances.
29. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
30. I did not find evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of Ms X’s complaint. The MO engaged with the points Ms X raised, and gave reasons for their decision which are in line with the Council’s procedure for investigating member code of conduct complaints.
31. The MO recognised there were occasions where Ms X did not get a response from Councillors, but they did not consider this was enough to engage the member code of conduct procedure.
32. Ms X considers Councillor One lied, and the Council did not properly investigate her complaint. However, in deciding not to accept Ms X’s allegations under the member code of conduct, the MO considered the substance of her complaint (i.e. not responding to emails or telephone calls) did not warrant further investigation. And they did not uphold her complaint about councillors objecting to her planning application.
33. Councillors are entitled to take their own view on a planning application. They cannot support all residents in circumstances where there are competing interests. The fact Councillors were opposed to Ms X’s planning application and spoke against it is not evidence of impropriety or misconduct.

Back to top

Final Decision

34. We did not find fault in the Council’s consideration of Ms X’s complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman