Summary: Ms F complained the Council failed to follow the correct process when dealing with her Code of Conduct complaint. I have found some fault by the Council which caused Ms F avoidable uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms F.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms F) says the Council failed to follow the correct process when considering her Code of Conduct (CoC) complaint against a Councillor in 2024. She says the Council failed to update her, did not explain why the Monitoring Officer’s decision differed from the Independent Persons view and did not explain whether evidence had been viewed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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. I have considered whether the Council followed the correct administrative process when dealing with Ms F’s Code of Conduct complaint. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms F and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. On 23 March 2024 Ms F submitted a CoC complaint against a Councillor (the Subject Member). The Council acknowledged receipt and notified the Subject Member at the end of March. On 21 May the Monitoring Officer issued their initial assessment. This included an assessment by the Independent Person. The Monitoring Officer decided there was animosity between Ms F and the Subject Member and suggested mediation be considered. No further action was to be taken as the threshold to be a breach of the CoC had not been met.
8. On 25 June Ms F made a second CoC complaint against the same Subject Member. She wanted the Council to consider this alongside other complaints made by third parties about the Subject Member to show there was a pattern of behaviour. She referred to the Subject Member making comments about her related to an email document. The next day the Council acknowledged the complaint and notified the Subject Member. The Council also told Ms F that once it received the Subject Member’s response the Monitoring Officer or Deputy Monitoring Officer would make an initial assessment to decide on what happened next. At the end of June, the Council checked with the Subject Member about the source of the email that was part of the CoC complaint.
9. The Council says it was in further contact with the Subject Member about the source of the email. I have limited evidence about what checks were made to obtain evidence. The Council confirmed to me that it was unable to obtain a copy of the original email that had references to Ms F.
10. On 8 October Ms F asked the Council for an update on her complaint. That same day the Deputy Monitoring Officer made their initial assessment. They set out the Independent Person’s view, which was most of the case was not a breach of the CoC. However, the email was a breach and did not need further investigation to determine this. The Monitoring Officer’s assessment was the Council could not consider other complaints made about the Subject Member alongside this case, it was reviewed on an individual basis. The Monitoring Officer decided to investigate further into the email about Ms F and would then decide if it needed further action. There was no explanation about why the Monitoring Officer’s view differed from the Independent Person.
11. On 15 November the Council told Ms F the Deputy Monitoring Officer had received additional information from the Subject Member and there would be another update next week. The Council says the Monitoring Officer discussed the case with the Independent Person on 25 November. I have no note of that discussion only a screenshot showing a call was made. At the end of November, the Deputy Monitoring Officer, acting as the Investigating Officer, issued the investigation report. She said the Council had sought information from the Subject Member about the source of the email. The report did not clarify whether the original email had been seen by the Investigating Officer. The Council found the Subject Member had not breached the CoC, but suggested mediation be considered. The Council sent a copy of the investigation report to Ms F and the Subject Member on 4 December.

What should have happened

12. Complaints made by a Councillor about another Councillor are considered under the Council’s CoC complaint process. When a complaint is received the Council should acknowledge it and ask the Subject Member to supply written comments.
13. The Monitoring Officer will carry out an initial assessment to determine if the complaint should be considered further or rejected. The Monitoring Officer considers the evidence and can consult the Independent Person for their view.
14. If the Monitoring Officer decides there is a possible breach of the CoC the Investigating Officer will carry out a formal investigation. The Monitoring Officer can delegate investigations to their deputy or another named individual. That means the Deputy Monitoring Officer can act as the Investigating Officer. The Council should provide an indicative timescale for the process to the complainant and provide “at least a monthly update report” to all parties.
15. The Monitoring Officer should consult the Independent Person before issuing a decision. If the Council decides there has been no breach of the CoC it can issue its investigation report decision.
16. The Guidance for Council’s on CoC complaint handling says where the view of the Independent Person is sought, this should be made clear in the decision notice. The Council should state if the Independent Person agreed with the decision or not and where there were differing views the Council should explain how those were considered before reaching a decision.

Was there fault by the Council

17. There is fault by the Council in this matter. The Council should have sent Ms F monthly updates on the investigation but failed to do so. Ms F also had to wait over a month for a response to her October 2024 request for an update which is not acceptable. The Council also failed to notify Ms F in October about the ‘indicative timescale’ at the start of the investigation.
18. The Monitoring Officer had to consult the Independent Person before the Council issued the investigation report in November. I have no record to show what was discussed, all I have is a screenshot from the Council showing a call was made between the Monitoring Officer and the Independent Person. That is not a sufficient level of evidence. This is especially important in a case where the Independent Person’s view in the initial assessment varied from the Monitoring Officer’s. The Council accepts the investigation report “could have provided an explanation as to why the Deputy Monitoring Officer disagreed with the Independent Person’s assessment on there being a clear breach.”
19. The investigation report also failed to clarify the Council had not seen the original email at the centre of the investigation.
20. There is no fault in how the first complaint, made in March, was handled. The Council followed the correct process.

Did the fault cause an injustice

21. The faults by the Council meant Ms F was caused uncertainty.

Back to top

Action

22. To remedy the injustice to Ms F the Council has agreed to send her a letter of apology within four weeks of this investigation ending.
23. As a service improvement, the Council has agreed to remind Officers about the need to follow the correct process including sending updates and setting out indicative timescales. Officers should also be reminded to make clear records of case discussions. This should be done within four seeks of the investigation ending.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find fault causing injustice. I have completed the investigation because the Council will take remedial action.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman