Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a code of conduct complaint against a councillor. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision on his code of conduct complaint about a councillor’s use of social media.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can 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, which included their complaint correspondence.
• the ‘Arrangements for dealing with standards allegations under the Localism Act 2011’, as detailed in the Council’s constitution.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is very unhappy the Council decided an informal resolution was an appropriate way to address his code of conduct complaint, particularly as this meant it did not reach a finding on whether the councillor breached the code.
6. 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 the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
7. Here, I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined Mr X’s code of conduct complaint, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• the Council considered the complaint in accordance with paragraphs 4.1 to 4.12 of the code of conduct complaint arrangements. In particular, paragraph 4.10 says:

“If the monitoring officer embarks on the course of informal resolution at this stage, it should be emphasised to the parties concerned that no finding has been made on whether the subject member has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.”

• an apology from the councillor was forwarded to Mr X by the Council.
• the social media post was removed.
• the Council reminded the councillor of the social media guidance in the constitution.
• in response to Mr X’s concerns about the original decision on the code of conduct, the Council conducted a review and explained its reasons for maintaining the original decision.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X ’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined his code of conduct complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman