Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because Ms X has not suffered significant injustice and it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with her complaint about the conduct of a councillor. Ms X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s reasons for not investigating her concerns and says there was a long delay before she received a response to her complaint.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
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 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, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer considered Ms X’s concerns and the evidence available. The Monitoring Officer consulted the Independent Person and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated further. The Monitoring Officer’s reasons for not taking further action were in line with the Council’s arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints.
8. I understand Ms 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.
9. There was a long delay before the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It has apologised and explained the steps it has taken to resolve the issues with how it deals with complaints about the conduct of councillors. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to this response. I also do not consider the injustice Ms X suffered because of the delays, significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has not suffered significant injustice. It is also unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman