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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not investigate a complaint about the conduct of a Councillor. Mr X stated that comments made about him by a Councillor as part of a public decision notice caused him reputational harm. He would like the Council to reconsider investigating his complaint.

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 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. Mr X made a complaint about comments the Councillor made on social media. The Council issued a decision statement. Following this Mr X made a further complaint about how the Councillor referred to him in that decision statement.
9. The Council considered Mr X’s concerns and the evidence available and explained why it did not consider the complaint should be investigated as the matter had already been subject to an investigation.
10. Mr X asked the Council to clarify its policy on the acceptability of personal remarks about complainants in published complaint responses and consider whether further safeguards were needed to protect complainants. The Council informed Mr X that it would not offer clarification because it regarded the request as an attempt to revisit or reopen its investigation of his complaint.
11. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision, but they are entitled to use their professional judgement to decide a formal investigation was not necessary. As the Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s published procedure for code of conduct complaints, not enough evidence of to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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