Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision of the Council’s Monitoring Officer on a complaint against a councillor. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the decision was made, and it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate the subsequent corporate complaint process in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the decision of the Council’s Monitoring Officer (MO) on his code of conduct complaint against a councillor. He also complains about how the Council dealt with his subsequent complaint against the MO’s decision.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. We can 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)
4. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• the Council’s code of conduct complaint process.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the MO decided to take no further action on his complaint against the councillor.
7. 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 whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
8. Here, the MO has followed the correct process for considering complaints against councillors, and has explained the reasons for her decision to take no further action on Mr X’s complaint. As such, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the MO’s handling of the complaint against the councillor, so we will not start an investigation.
9. And as we are not investigating the substantive issue being complained out (i.e. the MO’s handling of the complaint against the councillor) it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate in isolation the alleged faults in the Council’s subsequent corporate complaint process.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the MO reached her decision, and we will not investigate Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s subsequent complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman