Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a code of conduct complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the matter, and we could not achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council decided not to investigate his code of conduct (CoC) complaint against a councillor, on the grounds that the CoC was not engaged. Mr X says any reasonable member of the public would perceive the councillor’s social media posts as having been made in their capacity as a councillor, and he says the Council did not properly consider the evidence he provided.

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. The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X.
• the Council’s ‘Procedure for Member Code of Conduct Complaints’.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about the Council’s 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 processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes 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 (MO) has followed the Council’s procedures for determining CoC complaints, and has explained the reasons for deciding not to investigate. That was a professional judgement the MO was entitled to make.
8. As such, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision, so we will not start an investigation. We also could not achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking, as it is not the Ombudsman’s role to review/decide whether the CoC was engaged or whether the councillor was acting in their capacity as a councillor.
9. And, with reference to paragraph 3 above, if Mr X is unhappy about changes made to the CoC complaint process in October 2025, it seems reasonable to expect him to first submit a complaint to the Council, so it has an opportunity to respond to that particular issue. If Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, he can then bring that complaint back to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of procedural fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the CoC complaint, and we could not achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman