Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a code of conduct complaint about a councillor. There is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision on a code of conduct complaint about the behaviour of a councillor at a Council meeting.
2. Mr X says he was denied his right to ask supplementary questions in a public forum and wants the Council to change its approach to allow this in future meetings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained the Chair of a Council committee failed to follow the Council’s constitution when they refused to allow the public to ask questions without notice prior to the meeting. Instead, the public could submit questions in writing and would receive a written response. This change in the procedures was due to the sensitive nature of the topic under discussion.
7. A Council Officer investigated Mr X’s complaint on behalf of the Monitoring Officer. The Officer said that while the revised procedures differed from usual practice, they were permitted under its standing orders and code of conduct. Therefore, the Chair’s actions did not amount to a breach of the code.
8. 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.
9. In this case, the Officer considered Mr X’s concerns and the evidence available and explained why they did not consider the procedures in the constitution had been breached. There is no evidence of fault in how the Officer reached that decision.
10. Furthermore, Mr X was not prevented from submitting supplementary questions or receiving responses. The Council’s approach did not remove his right to ask questions, only to raise them verbally at that meeting. It did this to protect vulnerable people. Therefore, there is not enough evidence that Mr X experienced sufficient injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman