Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in how the Council considered his complaint. Additionally, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not consider his complaint against a Councillor properly, or in a timely manner. Mr X stated he felt sidelined and treated differently by the Councillor in email correspondence. He would like the Councillor to receive a warning and apologise to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. In this case, I am satisfied that the Monitoring Officer dealt with the matter in line with the Council’s rules for code of conduct complaints before deciding not to take further action. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns and the evidence available and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated. The Monitoring Officer also consulted the Independent Person.
9. I understand that Mr X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide that a formal investigation was not necessary. As the Monitoring Officer properly considered Mr X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, there is not enough evidence of fault.
10. Mr X complained separately to the Council about the time taken to receive a response to his code of conduct complaint. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint and apologised for the delay. The Council also stated that it would examine its policies and procedures to ensure that complaint responses are issued in a timely manner. Further investigation of this part of the complaint would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman