Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate the behaviour of Parish Councillors. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. We cannot investigate the actions of Parish Councils.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint about the behaviour of Parish Councillors. Mr X stated the Council’s refusal to consider his complaint has undermined his trust and the credibility of the Council’s standards regime. Mr X would like the Council to investigate his complaint and provide recommendations to prevent a similar failure taking place.

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 complaints about actions which are not the administrative function of a council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(1) 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.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. 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 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.
8. Mr X complained to the Council that Parish Councillors wrongly supported a Parish Council grant application.
9. In its complaint response, the Council told Mr X that his complaint could not be considered under its code of conduct complaints process because it was about the actions of a Parish Council, and not the behaviour of a Parish Councillor. The Council explained the Council’s Monitoring Officer did not have power to investigate the matter and recommended that Mr X raise a complaint with the Parish Council, or their external auditors.
10. The Ombudsman does not provide an appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decisions. Where a Monitoring Officer has made a decision 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.
11. In this case, I am satisfied the Council considered Mr X’s complaint in line with the Council’s rules for dealing with code of conduct complaints, before deciding to take no further action. It appropriately considered his concerns and explained the reasons for its decision to take no further action to him. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
12. Additionally, the law states we cannot investigate complaints about the actions of Parish Councils. Therefore, we cannot investigate the substantive matter of this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. We cannot investigate the actions of parish councils.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman