Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a code of conduct complaint about a councillor. The complainant has not suffered a significant injustice and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the code of conduct complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about the conduct of a councillor who he says has not responded to him when he has raised concerns about issues in the community.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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; or

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

3. 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

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. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
7. While Mr X may feel strongly about matters, he has not suffered a significant personal injustice sufficient enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Further, even if Mr X was to show he has suffered injustice I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify starting an investigation.
8. Local Authorities have a duty to designate a Monitoring Officer to ensure that the authority, its officer and members maintain the highest standards of conduct. Each council has different rules for dealing with complaint about code of conduct breaches.
9. The Ombudsman does not provide an appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decisions. We are also unable to investigate or comment on the actions of the town council or the councillor complained about. 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.
10. The Council followed its code of conduct complaint process in reaching its decision on Mr X’s complaint.  The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns, the evidence available and consulted the Independent Person.
11. I understand Mr X is unhappy with the Monitoring Officer’s decision and does not feel his concerns are resolved. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide whether the code of conduct had been breached.
12. As such, I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify starting an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered a significant enough injustice and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the code of conduct complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman