Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Councils handling of a Councillor standards complaint about his conduct. This is because there is not enough evidence of procedural fault to justify our involvement and another body is better placed to consider the other elements of his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council mishandled a Code of Conduct investigation about his conduct and failed to follow the correct process. He says this has caused him and his family significant distress.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained the Council conducted a lengthy Code of Conduct investigation and should have considered each complaint about the two Councillors separately rather than together. He also alleges the Council lost evidence and breached General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) during its investigation.
7. The Council explained why it reviewed the complaints together, but it still made separate findings and decisions for each Councillor. The evidence does not show that this approach caused injustice to Mr X. The Council documented its reasons and issued individual decisions for each Councillor.
8. Mr X says the investigation process was unnecessarily delayed and lengthy. The Council decided to combine its investigation into two similar complaints it received some months apart following advice from the Independent Person. The evidence does not show the Council’s delays caused significant or lasting injustice to Mr X. This is because restarting or replicating the process for each complaint received would unlikely have achieved a different outcome, have created further delay and wasted public resources.
9. We are not an appeal body. We do not reassess decisions to determine if they were wrong. Instead, we examine whether an organisation followed proper processes when making its decision. Mr X has alleged there were errors in the way the Council conducted the investigation, hearing and decision in his case. The shortfalls he has highlighted do not appear to be so significant that they call into question the entirety of the process or the conclusions reached. Because of this, we will not investigate the matter further.
10. Mr X has alleged the Council breached GDPR. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the appropriate body to review complaints about data protection. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to take this issue to the ICO.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of procedural fault to justify our involvement, and another body is better placed to consider the other elements of his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of procedural fault to justify our involvement, and another body is better placed to consider the other elements of his complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman