Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of councillors. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with his complaint about the conduct of councillors during a meeting.

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. (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 Mr X and 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 councillors 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 properly considered Mr X’s complaint before deciding the issues should not be considered further. The Monitoring Officer consulted the Independent Person and took account of the evidence available before deciding not to take further action. The Monitoring Officer also explained their reasons for not formally investigating Mr X’s concerns and the decision was in line with the Council’s arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints.
8. Mr X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide Mr X’s complaint should not be investigated further. As the Monitoring Officer properly considered Mr X’s concerns it is unlikely I would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman