Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a member conduct complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault or fault causing a significant injustice to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained to the Council that a district council member was rude and aggressive towards her at a parish council meeting. Mrs X complains the Council took a year to decide there had been no breach of its code of conduct. Mrs X feels her complaint has not been properly dealt with and does not reflect what took place at the meeting. Mrs X says she was left shaken by the member’s conduct and has been caused upset by the Council’s response.

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, or any fault has not caused significant injustice to the person who complained, or no meaningful outcome could be achieved by investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

6. In relation to the conduct complained about by Mrs X, the investigation report described the details of Mrs X’s complaint and the impact it had on her.
7. The investigating officer accepted that the conduct could have been seen as an aggressive act, but that in their view, there was nothing to suggest this was the intention of the action, rather, it was meant to indicate that the member was not going to discuss the matter further with Mrs X.
8. The investigating officer concluded that the complaint did not evidence a breach of the code of conduct. The Council’s Audit and Governance Sub-Committee (AGSC) agreed with this assessment and dismissed the complaint. This took place around a year after the original incident.
9. Mrs X considers the investigation was flawed and that the member and another person present at the meeting, where the incident took place, gave false accounts about it, and of Mrs X’s own conduct. Mrs X does not feel her complaint was therefore properly considered.
10. The Council’s procedure for dealing with member standards complaints states that most investigations will be capable of being carried out, and a report on the investigation completed, within a maximum of six months of the original complaint being referred for an investigation.

Back to top

My assessment

11. I have considered the investigation report and the section in it on the consideration of the complained about conduct did provide accurate details of Mrs X’s complaint. In assessing this, the investigating officer was entitled to conclude that no breach of the code of conduct was evidenced and the AGSC was entitled to support that decision. While I recognise there are areas of the investigation report that Mrs X considers to be inaccurate, this does not mean there was fault in the consideration of the substantive matter. I do not consider there is evidence to point to such fault and as such, we cannot criticise the Council’s decision on this.
12. In addition, while I understand Mrs X was upset by what took place, on balance, I do not consider this equates to a level of injustice that would justify our further involvement, in the public interest. We have limited resources and must direct them to the most serious cases. I do not consider this to be such a case, and this means that even if there had been fault in the Council’s decision making, it is unlikely we would have investigated.
13. The Council did delay in deciding the complaint and I recognise that this no doubt caused Mrs X some upset. However, I do not consider the injustice from this alone is sufficient to justify our further involvement. The Council apologised for the delay and in this case, this is the extent of the remedy we would have requested, had we taken this further.
14. For these reasons, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault or fault causing a significant injustice to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman