Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. Mr X disagrees with the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s decision and says the evidence he provided was overlooked and not given sufficient weight.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. 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 town council or 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.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council dealt with the matter in line with its arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints. The Deputy Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Independent Person, decided that part of Mr X’s complaint should not be investigated as there was insufficient evidence of a potential breach of the code and the allegation was not sufficiently serious enough to take further action.
8. The Deputy Monitoring Officer decided the remaining issue should be referred for an investigation. Following this, a report was prepared by an external investigating officer. The investigating officer recommended further action should not be taken as the councillor was acting in their personal capacity at the time of the incident. The Deputy Monitoring Officer and Independent Person agreed with this recommendation.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s decision. But I am satisfied the Deputy Monitoring Officer properly considered Mr X’s concerns and explained why further action would not be taken. They were entitled to use their professional judgement in this regard. As the Deputy Monitoring Officer properly considered Mr X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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