Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about 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 the actions of two councillors and the Council’s subsequent investigation of his complaints.
2. He says he has been caused significant distress and his confidence in the Council has been destroyed.
3. He wants one councillor to resign, the other to face the consequences of their actions and the Monitoring Officer to be held accountable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
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 authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure the council, its officers and members 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. I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer dealt with Mr X’s complaint in line with its arrangements for code of conduct complaints before deciding the complaint should not be investigated further. The Monitoring Officer spoke to the two councillors who agreed communications could have been better between them and Mr X. The two councillors agreed to write to Mr X and apologise and to arrange a meeting with him. This has now taken place. The Monitoring Officer informed Mr X these were proportionate outcomes and said they would not investigate further.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Monitoring Officer carried out their investigation and reached their conclusions to justify our involvement. Furthermore, we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants which amount to employment sanctions or their close equivalent being imposed on the councillors and the Monitoring Officer.

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