Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to act in response to his allegations of bias and discrimination. The Council has agreed to take appropriate steps to address the concerns and remedy the frustration caused. We will not investigate the handling of Mr X’s complaint about a councillor because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the handling of his complaint that a councillor was in breach of the members’ Code of Conduct, and about the Monitoring Officer’s decision not to carry out an investigation under section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Mr X says the Council has discriminated against him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), 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

Section 5 complaint

6. In April 2025, Mr X contacted the Council’s Monitoring Officer to ask them to carry out a statutory review under section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1996. He raised a number of concerns, including that the Council had not properly addressed various complaints made, and the Council’s conduct in relation to transparency and information sharing. He asked the Monitoring Officer to consider whether the concerns raised amounted to breaches of the Council’s Constitution.
7. The Monitoring Officer response, in May 2025:
• stated the threshold for their intervention under section 5 was not met;
• set out other options available to Mr X to pursue some of his concerns;
• said they would refer his concerns about institutional bias and targeted discrimination to the Council’s internal audit team; and
• asked Mr X to provide copies of relevant correspondence in relation to the concerns he had raised about the conduct of Councillor Y, so that matter could be investigated.
8. Mr X expressed his concern that the Monitoring Officer was not taking action, but the Council did not respond. In response to my enquiries, it said it did not do so because Mr X had simply restated the points made in his earlier email.
9. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted it had failed to make the referral to the internal audit team, for which it apologised. It said the referral had now been made and that the internal audit team will consider whether any further action is needed in respect of the allegations of bias and discrimination.
10. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find fault with the Council for failing to take the action it promised. This caused Mr X frustration. We therefore asked the Council to take steps to remedy the injustice caused and it has agreed to carry take the following action within one month of the date of this decision:
• apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice;
• provide evidence to Mr X to show the referral to the internal audit team has been made;
• write to Mr X to explain the scope of the investigations the internal audit team propose to make; and
• provide us with evidence it has taken the above action.

Code of Conduct complaint

11. The Council’s Monitoring Officer is responsible for considering complaints that an elected member has breached the Members’ Code of Conduct (the Code). Each council has its own rules for dealing with complaints about breaches.
12. We are not an appeal body. We are also unable to investigate or comment on actions of the councillor complained about. Where a decision has been made in line with the correct procedure, taking account of the relevant evidence, we cannot comment on the decision, even if the complainant disagrees with it.
13. Mr X reported concerns about Councillor Y’s conduct in May 2025. These centred around comments Councillor Y made about Mr X in two emails sent in March 2023. The emails were circulated to a number of officers and councillors, and Mr X later obtained them in response to an information request. Mr X said the emails meant the Council’s internal records reflected a narrative that was inaccurate and potentially damaging, and this had potentially affected later communications with the Council.
14. The Council followed its process by asking Councillor Y for their response and consulting with the Independent Person. It decided the allegation did not require further investigation. It issued an assessment report to Mr X and Councillor Y in July 2025, which set out its reasons in detail.
15. The assessment stated there was a balance to be maintained between the seven principles of public life incorporated into the Code and a councillor’s freedom to express their views and opinions. It concluded the comments made reflected Councillor Y’s personal views of a meeting Mr X attended and there was no indication these views influenced any decision in relation to the underlying matter Mr X was seeking to resolve at the time. Considered in the context of the email exchange, the comments were not sufficient evidence of conduct that was potentially a breach of the Code.
16. The Council followed its own process for consider Code of Conduct complaints, provided clear reasons for its decision in writing and there was no undue delay in considering the matter. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement so we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to address concerns of bias and discrimination. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to address the concerns and remedy the injustice caused. We will not investigate the was the Council handled his complaint about a councillor’s conduct because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman