Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his concerns about being bullied by other councillors in 2023. He also says officers subjected him to a ‘kangaroo court’. We will not investigate as this complaint is late received outside our usual 12-month period for investigating. Mr X says he has been ill and could not complain earlier. But, even if we did exercise discretion to investigate, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. In short, Mr X complains the Council failed to address his complaints properly about bullying by other councillors. He says his health worsened due to what happened to him. And that partly due to this, and other factors, he resigned after three months.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. I will not investigate as Mr X’s complaint is caught by the time bar on the Ombudsman’s powers.
8. I note Mr X’s reasons for not complaining earlier, due to his ill - health and his pressing family commitments. However, I do not see good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate as there is not enough evidence of the Council acting with fault.
9. We do not offer a right of appeal against a council’s decision on member conduct complaints, but we can consider if there was fault in the way the council considered the complaint.
10. The information shows the Council’s Monitoring officer reviewed Mr X’s complaint that two councillors had breached the Members Code of Conduct in their communications with Mr X.
11. The Monitoring Officer consulted with the ‘Independent Person’ before deciding the matter did not merit further investigation. The Monitoring Officer decided Mr X’s complaint was caught by clause six of the ‘Stage 2 Member Complaint Assessment Criteria’. This says that when ‘the complaint appears to be politically motivated, vexatious or trivial’, it would not normally be referred to investigation. Instead, the Monitoring Officer suggested informal resolution via mediation.
12. I consider these steps accord with the Council’s Member Misconduct Complaints Procedure and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
13. With respect to Mr X’s complaints that officers had subjected him to a ‘kangaroo court’, Mr X was provided with details of the line managers for him to raise complaints about the officers complained of. He was also signposted to our service. Again, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not investigate this late complaint. There are no good reasons to exercise discretion to justify an investigation now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman