Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a Councillor. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint about the behaviour of a councillor. She said the Council did not follow its procedures for assessment of councillor complaints. Mrs X said this has caused her stress and anxiety. She would like the Council to refer her complaint to the Standards Sub-Committee, or hold a face-to-face meeting to discuss the complaint, and to receive evidence that an Independent Person considered her complaint.

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 Mrs X and the Council’s complaint response.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
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 councillors 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. In this case, I am satisfied the Deputy Monitoring Officer dealt with the matter in line with the Council’s rules for code of conduct complaints before deciding not to take further action. The Deputy Monitoring Officer considered Mrs X’s concerns and the evidence available, consulted with an Independent Person, and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated.
9. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Deputy Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide a formal investigation was not necessary. As the Deputy Monitoring Officer properly considered Mrs X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Mrs X also complained the Council did not respond to her complaint within the timelines of the Council’s code of conduct complaints procedure. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman