Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered the conduct of two councillors. This is because we are unlikely to find enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer considered his complaint about the conduct of two ward councillors.
2. He says that as a result, a local facility has lost a Council grant. He says there have also been legal proceedings which have been expensive and caused disruption and distress.
3. He would like the Council to investigate his complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Councils have a duty to designate a Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of its decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure that the Council’s officers and councillors maintain the highest standards of conduct. Each council has different rules for dealing with complaints about code of conduct breaches.
9. 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.
10. In this case, I am satisfied 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. It explained this decision had been made in consultation with an independent person.
11. Mr X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the complaint should not be formally investigated. As the Monitoring Officer properly considered Mr X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, it is unlikely I would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman