Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a councillor’s conduct. There is insufficient evidence of fault of how the Council has considered the matter to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision not to investigate her complaint about a councillor’s conduct. She also complains about poor complaints handling. She says this has caused distress, she has been denied a fair process, and the Council has ignored her governance concerns. She wants an independent review of the matter and the Council to improve its complaints handling and governance arrangements.

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 the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
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 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.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer appropriately considered the matter before deciding not to take further action. The Monitoring Officer considered Ms X’s concerns and the evidence available and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated.
9. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the complaint should not be formally investigated. As the Monitoring Officer properly considered Ms X’s concerns, it is unlikely an investigation would find fault.
10. We will also not investigate the Council’s complaints handling. It is not a good use of our resources to consider complaints handling as a standalone issue, where we decide not to investigate the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman