Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation and decision(s) relating to a Councillor standards of conduct complaint. Further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X was unhappy with the conduct of local ward Councillors which he said had a significant impact on his health and wellbeing.
2. Mr X was also dissatisfied with several aspects of the way the Council investigated his concerns, including the length of time it took for the Council to investigate and respond to his complaint, and this added to his distress.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X made a complaint about local ward Councillors after he was made aware of behaviour, he felt was in breach of the councillor code of conduct.
8. The Council decided to investigate Mr X’s complaint as a potential breach of its Councillor standards, and sought the views of an independent person, in line with its policy. During the investigation, it interviewed complainants and spoke to the subjects of the complaint. It also examined evidence.
9. I have considered the documents from Mr X’s complaint including the Council’s draft and final report together with Mr X’s representations. The investigator made conclusions about whether there was any breach of the code of conduct and set out their reasoning for their findings. They also made recommendations to the monitoring officer (MO).
10. I have also considered the MO’s decision. The MO considered the investigator’s report and findings. The MO referenced the evidence they considered and decided, in most instances, there had been no breach of the code of conduct. Additionally, they explained why they believed this was the case.
11. In respect of one matter where they decided there had been a breach of the code of conduct, they decided how the matter would be resolved and explained why they chose this option. The MO also acknowledged the investigation had taken longer than it had been hoped and explained this was because it had been a complex matter.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has already investigated in line with its case handling procedure and given reasons for its findings and decisions.
13. 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 there is a disagreement with the decision the organisation made. Consequently, further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman