Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with 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. (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 must have a Monitoring Officer to ensure decisions are lawful, fair and in line with standards. Each council has its own procedures for handling code of conduct complaints.
7. 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.
8. The Council’s arrangements for dealing with complaints about councillors states:

“A complaint will be rejected if:
The complaint, if proven, would not be a breach of the Code of Conduct under which the subject member was operating at the time of the alleged misconduct.”

9. In this case, the Monitoring Officer decided not to accept the complaint. They explained to Mr X the action he complained about took place when the councillor was acting in their capacity as a school governor, and not as an elected councillor. This means the Code of Conduct is not engaged. The Monitoring Officer acknowledged the Councillor used their Council email address when responding to Mr X, but this is not evidence the Councillor was acting as an elected Member. The Councillor has been reminded not to use their Council email address when not acting in their capacity as councillor.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. However, the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to conclude the code of Conduct was not engaged in regard to the Councillor’s actions. As the process was followed correctly, it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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 about the conduct of a councillor.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman