Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a councillor conduct complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault or fault causing a significant injustice, to justify our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council ought not to have progressed a complaint about his conduct as a parish councillor without asking the complainant to provide evidence to support their complaint and further clarification regarding the specifics of the allegations. Mr X also says the complaint was in the main made against him as a resident and that in any case, it should have been made in the first instance to the parish council in question, Mr X says he has been caused stress and anxiety and that the matter has led him to question his future as a councillor.

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 or fault causing a significant injustice to justify investigating (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. I have considered the Council’s procedure for dealing with councillor conduct complaints.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

6. The Council assessed the complaint against Mr X in consultation with its Independent Person, a role introduced by the Localism Act 2011 to provide an impartial opinion on standards complaints.
7. The Council decided that Mr X was acting in his capacity as a councillor during the circumstances of the complaint and so went on to consider whether a breach of the councillor code of conduct had taken place. The Council concluded that the complaint did not warrant formal investigation, as it did not consider that a breach of the code of conduct was evidenced.
8. Mr X was unhappy with the outcome, as outlined in paragraph one, and complained to us.

Back to top

My assessment

9. That Mr X felt the Council should have requested further information from the complainant at the outset, in my consideration, does not amount to the Council being at fault. It is for the Council to decide whether there is sufficient evidence on which to base a decision, as per its procedure for dealing with standards complaints.
10. Similarly, it is for the Council to decide whether the conduct in question took place when Mr X was acting in his capacity as a councillor. The Council decided it did, having regard to the complaint made. We could only challenge this if there was clear evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of this. I do not consider there is sufficient evidence of such fault. Notwithstanding this, I do not consider Mr X was caused a significant injustice from any potential fault in this regard, given the Council dismissed the complaint, finding there was no breach of the code of conduct. Any injustice from Council fault in progressing the complaint alone, in my view, would not warrant our further involvement, in the public interest.
11. The Council deals with standards complaints, not the parish council, and so no initial referral to the parish council was required.
12. For these reasons, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it Is unlikely we will find fault, or fault causing Mr X a significant injustice, by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman