Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. The Council has apologised for the delay in its response and further investigation on this point is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. We have not seen sufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of Mrs X’s concerns.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with her complaint about the conduct of parish councillors.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Mrs X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Local Authorities have a duty to designate a Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure that the authority, its officers and members maintain the highest standards of conduct. Each council has different rules for dealing with complaints about code of conduct breaches.
6. 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 parish 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.
7. In this case, the Monitoring Officer’s response to Mrs X’s complaint was made more than 20 working days after she made her complaint. However, the Council has apologised for the delay and further investigation on this point would not lead to a different outcome.
8. I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer considered Mrs X’s concerns and advised why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated. The Monitoring Officer also consulted the Independent Person.
9. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the complaint should not be formally investigated. As they properly considered Mrs X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• Further investigation of the late response is unlikely to lead to a different outcome; and
• There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her complaint that parish councillors breached the code of conduct.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman