Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the code of conduct complaints the complainant made against two councillors. There is insufficient evidence that fault in the decision-making process has affected the outcome of the two complaints.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of code of conduct complaints he submitted against two councillors (Councillors Y and Z). In refusing to investigate his complaints, Mr X says the Council has shown political and personal bias, which breaches its own policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council.
• the ‘How we will deal with your complaint’ section of the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. I appreciate Mr X is very unhappy that the Council decided not to pursue his code of conduct complaints against two councillors.
5. But 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 the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made. We also consider if any fault we may find is likely to have affected the outcome or caused the complainant a significant injustice. In other words, we will only pursue a complaint if there is clear evidence of fault in the way a decision was made which, but for that fault, is likely to have led to a different decision or a more positive outcome for the complainant.
6. The Council has confirmed its previous Monitoring Officer consulted with the Independent Person before reaching the decision on the first complaint (against Councillor Y), not to take any action. The Monitoring Officer provided Mr X with his reasons for this decision. As such, I consider there is insufficient evidence of procedural fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the first complaint, so we will not investigate the matter.
7. The Council says it can find no record of a discussion between the previous Monitoring Officer and the Independent Person about the second complaint, (against Councillor Z), before the decision not to take any action was reached.
8. I have therefore considered whether any failure to consult the Independent Person is likely to have affected the outcome on the second complaint. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied the outcome is likely to have been the same. The complaints against the two councillors were similar in nature and submitted within minutes of each of other. The Monitoring Officer’s reasons for not investing both complaints were also similar. It therefore seems likely that the conclusion on the second complaint would have been the same even if the Independent Person was consulted. So, further investigation of this part of the complaint by the Ombudsman is not justified either.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has affected the decisions on the two code of conduct complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman