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

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to take into account relevant information when reaching its decision on his code of conduct (CoC) complaint against a councillor, as it did not question a witness about the councillor’s behaviour.

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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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.
• information provided by the Council, about how the CoC complaint was assessed.
• the Council’s ‘Procedure for considering complaints that members have breached the code of conduct’.
• The Local Government Association’s ‘Guidance on Member Model Code of Conduct Complaints Handling’ (the LGA guidance).
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X feels the Council’s Monitoring Officer should have obtained more information before reaching a decision on his CoC complaint.
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 process the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed the process correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
7. Here, the Monitoring Officer has considered the complaint in accordance with the Council’s procedures for determining CoC complaints, including consulting with the Independent Person, whilst also having regard to the LGA guidance. In particular, this guidance says enquiries at the initial assessment stage should be limited to readily available public records so as not to extend into a more formal investigation .
8. In my view, there is insufficient evidence of procedural fault in the way the Council has determined the CoC complaint, so we will not start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the CoC complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman