Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s handling of a councillor code of conduct complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council mishandled and delayed responding to his complaint about the conduct of a councillor. He said it had caused him frustration and time and trouble pursuing the matter. He would like the Council to apologise, provide him with a response to his code of conduct complaint and put in measures to prevent recurrence.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. 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.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer dealt with the matter in line with the Council’s rules for code of conduct complaints before deciding to arrange an informal resolution. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns and the evidence available and arranged for an informal resolution.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with how his complaint was handled. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide how to respond to the complaint. As the Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter. While I appreciate Mr X's concerns about how the Council responded to his code of conduct complaint, I do not consider the issue complained about caused him a significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
10. Mr X also complained the Council did not respond to his complaint within the timelines of the Council’s arrangements for code of conduct complaints and did not inform him his complaint had been closed.
11. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The Council apologised to Mr X for the delay in responding to his complaint, and for not contacting him to tell him his complaint had concluded. 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

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman