Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a code of conduct complaint against a councillor. There is insufficient evidence of fault directly causing the complainant a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consult the Independent Person (IP) before dismissing his code of conduct (CoC) complaint against a councillor, who he says participated in a Planning Board meeting whilst also having a disclosable pecuniary interest. Mr X says the Council acted contrary to section 28(7) of the Localism Act 2011 (the Act) and its own standards procedures.
2. Mr X says the Council’s refusal to investigate has caused significant frustration and loss of trust in local governance, and he has spent substantial time gathering evidence and corresponding with the Council about the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not directly 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))

4. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can consider whether there was fault in the way the Council 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)
5. And in relation to the second and third bullet points above, we do start an investigation if we decide the impact of the fault a person complains about is not so significant that we should investigate. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council.
• the Act, and the Council’s ‘Procedure for dealing with complaints against Councillors concerning breaches of the Code of Conduct’.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate Mr X might be unhappy the Council decided to take no further action on his complaint, as it did not show a failure of the councillor to comply with the CoC. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
8. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s CoC complaint, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• section 28(7) of the Act only says the views of the IP are to be sought and taken into account by the Council before it makes a decision on an allegation it has decided to investigate; I understand the Council had not decided to investigate Mr X’s CoC complaint.
• rather, the Council has confirmed Mr X’s complaint was dealt with at Stage 1 of its CoC complaint process, which does not require the involvement of the IP.
9. And even if the Council should have consulted the IP, any injustice caused to Mr X is not, from the Ombudsman’s perspective, significant enough to justify our continued involvement in the matter. Whilst I appreciate Mr X might feel aggrieved if the CoC complaint process was not properly followed, I have seen no evidence to suggest he is personally affected by the outcome of the planning application which the ward councillor was speaking against at the Planning Board meeting. As such, any time and effort Mr X spent on pursuing his associated CoC complaint was a matter of his own choosing, rather than something which inevitably flowed from the decision-making on the planning application. And if Mr X believes the councillor may have committed a criminal offence under section 34(1)(b) of the Act, it is open to him to present his evidence to the Police.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the CoC complaint process directly causing him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman