Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate Mr X’s complaint that a councillor breached the code of conduct. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Nor do we consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused to investigate his complaint that a councillor breached the code of conduct.

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 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 Council.
4. I considered 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 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. Mr X says the Council should have told him it will not accept code of conduct complaints from multiple people. He says it does not have a robust procedure for dealing with complaint against councillors.
8. The Council’s arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints allow the Council’s Monitoring Officer to assess the complaint and determine whether the individual was acting in their capacity as councillor, whether there was a breach of the code of conduct and whether information action should be taken to resolve the matter such as the councillor making an apology.
9. In this case the Monitoring Officer, having consulted the Council’s Independent Person, decided the complaint should be dealt with by an information resolution. They did not decide an investigation should take place. The councillor was asked to apologise to Mr X which they did. Having followed the correct process, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
10. I understand Mr X is concerned that other people who were party to the complaint did not receive an apology. However, I consider that if other individuals feel aggrieved, it is for them to make their own complaints to the Council.
11. Mr X has received an apology therefore I do not consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his complaint that a councillor had breached the code of conduct; and
• We do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman