Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council delayed and failed to investigate her complaint about the behaviour of a Councillor. She stated the actions of the Councillor has had a negative impact on an organisation she represents. She would like the Councillor to apologise publicly and for the Council to investigate their actions. She also asked for the Council to offer compensation for the organisation’s financial loss.

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)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. 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.
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 uphold Ms X’s complaint. The Monitoring Officer considered Ms X’s concerns and the evidence available and conducted an investigation into the matter. The Monitoring Officer also consulted the Independent Person.
11. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide not to uphold her complaint. As the Monitoring Officer properly considered Ms X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, it is unlikely I could find fault.
12. Ms X asked for financial compensation for the organisation she represents, to reflect the loss of a contract it held with the Council. We will not investigate this part of the complaint. Claims about contractual obligations are for the courts to determine, not the Ombudsman, and it would be reasonable for Ms X to ask the court to consider this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms 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