Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly deal with councillor conduct matters and restricted her emails. We found fault in how the Council explained arrangements affecting Ms X’s emails. This caused uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council:
1. Failed to properly assess and investigate complaints she made about the conduct of other councillors;
2. Failed to disclose details of alleged complaints made about her conduct, and failed to follow proper procedure in assessing and investigating these complaints;
3. Failed to have in place a proper procedure for assessing and investigating complaints about councillor conduct in general; and
4. Improperly restricted and intercepted her email communications.
2. Ms X says the Council failing to properly assess and investigate the complaints it received has caused her significant distress, frustration and uncertainty. She also says the Council’s actions have impeded her ability to perform her role as an elected member.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have not investigated

5. I have not investigated the actions of the town council or the conduct of individual town councillors. Town and parish councils are not bodies within our jurisdiction.
6. Ms X has raised serious concerns about the actions of other town councillors, including allegations about financial impropriety. It is not my role to decide whether those allegations are correct, whether any criminal or electoral offence has occurred, or whether any town councillor breached the Code of Conduct. Those matters are for other bodies to consider.
7. I have also not investigated matters currently being considered by the police, the Electoral Commission, or any other investigatory body.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. Ms X provided detailed comments. I have considered those comments before making this final decision. They have not changed my overall view, but I have amended the decision to better explain the scope of my investigation and my reasons for not investigating some parts of the complaint further.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Councillor standards

The Localism Act 2011 requires relevant authorities to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members and co-opted members of the authority.

10. Relevant authorities must adopt a code of conduct for members. The code must be consistent with the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
11. The Act says a relevant authority, other than a parish council, must have arrangements under which allegations that a member or co-opted member has failed to comply with the authority’s code of conduct can be investigated and decisions on allegations can be made.
12. Those arrangements must include provision for the appointment of at least one Independent Person. The authority must seek and take into account the Independent Person’s views before making a decision on an allegation it has decided to investigate. The views of the Independent Person may also be sought by a member who is the subject of an allegation.

Managing communications

13. Councils may take reasonable and proportionate steps to manage a person’s communications where this is necessary.
14. However, councils should be transparent about restrictions affecting a person’s communications. They should normally explain what restriction is in place, why it is necessary, how long it will last, and how it will be reviewed.

Remedies

15. Our Guidance on Remedies says remedies should, where possible, put the person back in the position they would have been in but for the fault.
16. Where this is not possible, remedies may include an apology, an explanation, or action to prevent recurrence.

What happened

Ms X is a town councillor. The Council is the principal authority for the area. Its Monitoring Officer has responsibility for standards matters involving town and parish councillors.

17. In June 2024, Ms X raised concerns with the Council’s Monitoring Officer and Chief Executive. Her concerns included allegations about financial impropriety, councillor conduct, and the actions of other town councillors.
18. Ms X said she provided detailed information to the Council in writing. She said the Monitoring Officer did not properly investigate her concerns or explain what process the Council would follow.
19. The Council told Ms X it considered some of the matters she raised were more appropriate for the police or other investigatory bodies. The Council also said it did not want to prejudice other investigations.
20. The Council asked Ms X to attend a meeting to discuss her concerns. Ms X did not agree to meet and said she wanted the Council to respond in writing.
21. Ms X also said complaints had been made about her by others. She said the Council had not clearly explained what those complaints were, who had made them, or what process the Council was following.
22. Ms X complained to the Council. She said the Council had failed to properly consider her complaints about member conduct. She also said the Council had communicated poorly and had treated her unfairly.
23. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It said the matters she had raised were not matters it could deal with under the Code of Conduct. It said it had offered to meet Ms X to discuss the issues and related matters, but she had declined to meet.
24. During our investigation, we asked the Council for information about how it had considered Ms X’s concerns. The Council provided its complaint response and a copy of its Code of Conduct for Members. It did not provide a separate Monitoring Officer assessment document. It said consultation with the Independent Person was not necessary in this case.
25. Ms X also said emails she sent to the town council were restricted or diverted. She said the Council’s Monitoring Officer was involved in recommending or facilitating those arrangements. Ms X said this affected her ability to communicate with the town council and carry out her role as an elected councillor.
26. We asked the Council further questions about the complaints process and Ms X’s communications. The evidence showed the Monitoring Officer had not dealt with Ms X’s concerns under a formal policy and had not investigated complaints made against her under a formal process.

Back to top

Analysis

27. The Council is the principal authority and is a body within our jurisdiction. I can therefore consider how it dealt with standards concerns referred to its Monitoring Officer.
28. My role is to consider whether there was administrative fault in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s concerns, and whether any fault caused Ms X a significant personal injustice.

Complaints Ms X made about other councillors and the Council’s procedure

29. Ms X says the Council failed to properly assess and investigate complaints she made about the conduct of other town councillors. She also says the Council failed to have in place a proper procedure for assessing and investigating complaints about councillor conduct.
30. The Council provided a copy of its Code of Conduct for Members. However, it did not provide a separate policy or procedure setting out how the Monitoring Officer assesses and investigates complaints about councillor conduct. It also did not provide a separate written assessment showing how the Monitoring Officer considered Ms X’s complaints.
31. I recognise why Ms X considers this unsatisfactory. A clear written process helps complainants understand what has been considered, what decision has been made, and why. It also helps demonstrate that relevant information has been considered and irrelevant information has been excluded.
32. The Council did not deal with Ms X’s concerns under a formal written procedure. That is not what we would generally expect. The Monitoring Officer may have discretion in how to respond to standards concerns, but that discretion should be exercised within the Council’s standards arrangements and in a way that is fair and transparent. The evidence indicates the Council took informal steps to try to manage the relationships between those involved and provided a rationale for not progressing Ms X’s concerns through a formal standards investigation.
33. The Council explained that some of the issues Ms X raised were not suitable for consideration under the Code of Conduct, and some were more appropriate for other investigatory bodies. I also note the substantive allegations Ms X raised concern the conduct of town councillors and, in part, matters being considered by other bodies.
34. I recognise Ms X’s point that the Council should have arrangements for dealing with complaints about councillor conduct, and that any discretion exercised by the Monitoring Officer should be exercised within those arrangements. For the reasons set out above, I understand why Ms X considers the process lacked transparency.
35. However, I do not consider a worthwhile outcome would be achieved by investigating this part of the complaint further. The substantive allegations Ms X raised concern the conduct of town councillors and, in part, matters being considered by other bodies. I cannot decide whether those allegations are correct or whether any town councillor breached the Code of Conduct. Further investigation would therefore be limited to the Council’s administrative process and would not allow me to require the Council to reach a particular standards decision.

Complaints made about Ms X

36. Ms X says the Council failed to tell her clearly about complaints made against her. She says it did not explain who had complained, what the complaints were about, or what process the Council was following.
37. The evidence shows the Monitoring Officer referred to complaints or allegations about Ms X. However, the Council has not shown that it completed a formal investigation into complaints made about Ms X, made findings against her, or imposed a standards sanction.
38. I understand why Ms X found this unclear and concerning. If a council refers to complaints made about a councillor, it should normally explain enough information for the councillor to understand the nature of the concerns, whether a formal process is being followed, and what rights or safeguards are available within that process.
39. The Council should have been clearer with Ms X about whether it was assessing formal complaints, what the allegations were, and what process it was following. This is likely to have caused Ms X uncertainty and frustration.
40. However, the Council did not complete a formal investigation or uphold complaints against Ms X. There was no formal adverse finding against her and no standards sanction. I therefore do not consider this issue, on its own, caused Ms X a significant personal injustice that would justify further investigation. The practical impact Ms X identifies is closely linked to the arrangements affecting her communications, which I consider separately below.

Restrictions or diversions affecting Ms X’s emails

41. Ms X says emails she sent in her role as a town councillor were restricted or diverted. She says the Council’s Monitoring Officer was involved in recommending or facilitating those arrangements. She says this affected her ability to communicate with the town council and carry out her elected role.
42. Councils may, in some circumstances, take steps to manage a person’s communications. However, they should act transparently. Where a council restricts or diverts a person’s communications, we would expect it to explain what restriction is in place, why it is necessary, how long it will last, and how it will be reviewed.
43. The Council has not provided evidence it clearly told Ms X what arrangements were in place for handling her emails, why those arrangements were necessary, how long they would remain in place, or how they would be reviewed. That lack of transparency was fault.
44. This caused Ms X avoidable uncertainty and frustration. As Ms X remains a town councillor, it also left her unclear about how her communications were being handled in connection with her elected role.
45. I do not consider it necessary or proportionate to investigate the detailed operation of the email arrangements further. The appropriate remedy is for the Council to apologise and provide Ms X with a clear written explanation of any current arrangements affecting her communications, including the reasons for them, how long they will remain in place, and how they will be reviewed.

Back to top

Agreed actions

46. To resolve matters and remedy injustice identified in this complaint, the Council has agreed to:
1. Send Ms X a written apology for the uncertainty and frustration caused by its failure to clearly explain the arrangements affecting her emails.
2. Provide Ms X with a clear written explanation of any current restrictions, diversions, or other arrangements affecting emails she sends in her role as a town councillor. The explanation should at least set out, what arrangements are in place, why the Council considers those arrangements necessary, how long the arrangements will remain in place; and how and when the Council will review them.
47. The Council has agreed to complete actions a and b within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision. The Council will provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

48. I find the Council was at fault for failing to clearly explain arrangements affecting Ms X’s emails. This caused Ms X avoidable uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman