Summary: The Council followed the procedures set out in the Localism Act 2011 when it decided not to investigate Mr X’s complaint about his councillors. The Council is not at fault. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making its decision and I cannot therefore criticise its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint against four councillors. He says the councillors discriminated against him and did not respond to his correspondence. He wants the Council to apologise and act on his concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. We cannot investigate complaints about actions which are not the administrative function of a council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(1) as amended).
5. During the course of this investigation Mr X has raised concerns about his housing. The Council is not Mr X’s landlord and is not responsible for the issues he has raised. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about his housing. It is open to Mr X to complain to the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law

8. The system of regulation of standards of member conduct in England is governed by the Localism Act 2011.
9. Under Section 28 of the Localism Act 2011, local authorities must have ‘arrangements’ in place to handle complaints about councillors breaching the Code of Conduct. This process must include appointing at least one Independent Person to give their opinion before making decisions on investigated complaints.
10. Generally, the Monitoring Officer will first assess a complaint and decide whether it merits formal investigation. They may dismiss a complaint if, for example, there is no breach of the Code of Conduct, the councillor was not acting in an official capacity, the matter is trivial, or it is not in the public interest to investigate. If they decide to carry out a formal investigation, this may involve the Monitoring Officer, another Investigating Officer and the Standards Committee or Hearings Panel and will include an Independent Person.
11. The Ombudsman does not offer a right of appeal against a council’s decision on complaints about member conduct and will not investigate the issues that prompted the complaint about member conduct. However, we can consider if there was fault in the way the Monitoring Officer or Standards Committee considered the complaint. If that is the case, we may ask the Council to review the way it has considered the complaint.

What happened

12. Mr X has raised several complaints with the Council. In early 2024 the Council contacted him saying it understood he wanted to make a complaint about his local councillor. Mr X followed up the complaint later in the year. He said his councillors had not responded to his emails about his housing situation and health needs. He said they had discriminated against him because of his race and disability.
13. Over the next few weeks Mr X contacted the Council to add further details about a lack of contact from his councillors. The Council acknowledged these emails and added them to the complaint.
14. The Council’s monitoring officer responded to Mr X’s complaint. It confirmed the complaint was about the conduct of Mr X’s local councillors. It said it had consulted with an independent person. It clarified that it was not Mr X’s landlord and not responsible for his social housing and the NHS was responsible for any health services Mr X received. It said Mr X’s councillors had limited ability to assist him as these were matters outside of the Council’s control, but they had tried. It added that councillors were under no duty to take up issues on behalf of every resident that contacted them. The Council said it could not identify any breach of its code of conduct. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

15. The Council appointed an independent person and consulted with them before deciding Mr X’s complaint did not meet the threshold for investigation. It followed the process set out in the Localism Act 2011. The Council is not at fault.
16. 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.
17. In deciding not to investigate Mr X’s complaint, the Council took account of the relevant law and the information provided by Mr X. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making its decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.

Back to top

Decision

I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman