Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint that a parish council breached the code of conduct. This is because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner about the Council’s decision to withhold information he is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to investigate his complaint that a parish councillor breached the Code of Conduct.
2. He also complains the Council refuses to give him information that he has requested.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

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. Mr X complains the Council has manipulated the Code of Conduct rules to ensure it will not investigate his complaint that a parish councillor breached the Code of Conduct.
7. Councils 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 council, its officers and members maintain the highest standards of conduct. Each council has different rules for dealing with complaints about code of conduct breaches.
8. 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.
9. In this case, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Council’s Independent Person and the Chair of the Standards Committee, appropriately considered the matter before deciding not to take further action. They considered Mr X’s concerns and explained they considered Mr X’s complaint did not warrant formal investigation nor would an investigation be in the public interest.
10. This is in line with the Council’s arrangements for dealing with complaints about councillors which says:

“… the Monitoring Officer will, in consultation with the Independent Person, the Chair of the Standards Committee (or the Vice-Chair if the Chair is a member of the same group within the City Council as the Councillor complained of), and, if appropriate, the Chief Executive, determine whether the complaint merits formal investigation or whether no further action should be taken.”

11. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer, in conjunctions with the consultees, was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the complaint should not be formally investigated. As the Monitoring Officer followed the procedures for dealing with Code of Conduct complaints, it is unlikely we would find fault.
12. Mr X also complains the Council refuses to provide information that he is seeking.
13. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered his complaint that a parish councillor breached the code of conduct. Also, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner about the Council’s decision to withhold information he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman