Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor in connection with a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with her complaint about the conduct of a councillor in connection with a planning application.

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 Miss 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 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. We will not investigate. 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 take further action. The Monitoring Officer considered Miss X’s concerns and the evidence available and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated. The Monitoring Officer also consulted the Independent Person.
8. Miss X says the Monitoring Officer did not properly answer her complaint and there were inaccuracies in the response. The Council has apologised for sending Miss X a link to the wrong planning application in its complaint acknowledgement. Overall, however, it highlighted that the planning decision was not made by the councillor, that the councillor supporting the application is not a breach of the code and there is no requirement on the councillor to consult with residents before making their views known.
9. While Miss X’s fundamental disagreement is with the outcome of the planning application, and that is a matter for a different complaint, I am satisfied how the Monitoring Officer has explained why further action would not be taken on this complaint. As the Monitoring Officer has considered Miss X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman