Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of councillors. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a complaint about the conduct of councillors. Mr X says the Monitoring Officer applied the wrong legal tests and incorrectly dismissed 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. In this case, the Monitoring Officer looked into Mr X’s concerns and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated further. The Monitoring Officer’s reasons for not investigating Mr X’s concerns were in line with the Council’s arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints.
7. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision and says his concerns were not properly considered. But even if I were to find fault with how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint, I do not consider he has suffered any significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions. Mr X says he has been caused frustration and been put to time and trouble. But I do not consider these issues serious enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman