Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with his complaint about the conduct of a councillor. Mr X says the Council did not respond to his complaint in a reasonable time and did not properly consider the serious issues he raised.

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 Mr 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 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.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer properly considered Mr X’s concerns and consulted the Independent Person. The Monitoring Officer said the issues raised may amount to a breach of the code of conduct. However, the Monitoring Officer decided the matter could be resolved informally. They spoke to the councillor complained about and explained the ways their actions were not aligned with the code. The Monitoring Officer also said the councillor should send a written apology to Mr X.
7. Mr X says an apology is not sufficient. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide an informal resolution was appropriate in the circumstances and the decision not to investigate Mr X’s concerns is in line with the Council’s arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints.
8. Mr X says the Monitoring Officer took too long to respond to his complaint. However, I do not consider that the injustice Mr X suffered because of any delays would be significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman