Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of two councillors. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with her complaint about the conduct of two councillors.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Local Authorities have a duty to designate a Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure that the authority, its officers and members maintain the highest standards of conduct. Each council has different rules for dealing with complaints about code of conduct breaches.
5. 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 councillors 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.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer properly considered Ms X’s concerns and the evidence available before deciding not to take further action. The Monitoring Officer also consulted the Independent Person.
7. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the code of conduct had not been breached. The Monitoring Officer’s decision not to investigate Ms X’s concerns was also in line with the Council’s arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints.
8. Ms X says the Monitoring Officer took too long to respond to her complaint and they spelt the councillor’s name incorrectly. However, I do not consider that any injustice Ms X suffered because of these matters would be significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Ms X has not suffered any significant injustice as a result of any delays responding to her complaint or because of a spelling error.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman