Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about standards committees because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint about the local council failing to fulfil a manifesto pledge and about comments made by a local councillor.
2. Mr Y says this has caused him upset and worry and he has been threatened and abused online.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y complained to the Council about comments made by a local councillor and that the local council has not fulfilled some of its pledges from its manifesto.
7. Local Authorities have a duty to appoint a Monitoring Officer (MO) to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. The MO must ensure the authority, its officers, and members maintain the highest standards of conduct.
8. In this case the Council’s MO has considered Mr Y’s complaint. The MO considered the evidence provided and decided to not further investigate Mr Y’s complaint as even if it were proven, it would not be a breach of the Member’s Code of Conduct. It explained its decision-making process and its decision with reference to the Council’s policy for such complaints. It also referred Mr Y’s complaint about manifesto pledges to the local political party who had made the pledge as this was not a matter the MO could decide on, due to its political nature.
9. 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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
10. While Mr Y may disagree with the MO’s decision, they were entitled to use their professional judgement. As the Council has referred to its consideration of evidence, its policy for such complaints and its reason for not investigating Mr Y’s complaint, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint. We will therefore not investigate this complaint.
11. Further, Mr Y has said he is seeking the sacking of all the councillors at the Council and others. This is not an outcome which we have the power to achieve. We must use public funds carefully. As we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking, we will not investigate his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman