Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council considered his complaint that a councillor breached the code of conduct. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Also, we will not investigate his complaint about the actions of a housing officer as further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained to the Council about the behaviour of two councillors and an officer.

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.

(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 Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Local Authorities have a duty to appoint a Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure the authority its officers and members uphold the highest standards of conduct. Each council has different rules for dealing with complaints about code of conduct breaches.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer correctly considered the matter before deciding not to take further action. The Monitoring Officer, together with its Independent Person, considered Mr X’s concerns about the actions of the councillors, the evidence available and explained why it did not consider the complaint should be investigated.
8. In its’ view it was not in the public interest to refer the matter for a formal investigation, as it found no evidence to suggest the two councillors breached the Code of Conduct.
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 usually not criticise the decision, even if the complainant does not agree with it.
10. Mr X also complained the officer failed to tell one councillor that Mr X did not want them to attend a meeting.
11. The Council confirms Mr X emailed the officer after working hours the night before he was due to attend a meeting. He sent another email shortly before the meeting was due to start. Unfortunately, the officer is no longer employed by the Council so cannot be asked why they did not advise the councillor that Mr X did not want them at the meeting.
12. Given we cannot ask for more information from the officer, we consider that further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we consider:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating his concerns about the actions of councillors; and
• further investigation into the actions of the officer would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman