Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his complaints and correspondence. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to respond to governance concerns he raised with the Monitoring Officer. He says he sent several follow-up letters and sought support from his MP, but neither he nor his MP received a substantive response. Mr X also complains the Council did not properly consider his later corporate complaint. He says the Council wrongly stated it had already addressed the matter and did not explain how he could escalate or appeal its decision. Mr X says this caused avoidable time and trouble, frustration and uncertainty about whether the Council had properly considered his concerns. He wants the Council to explain what happened, provide an appropriate remedy and review its procedures for handling correspondence sent to the Monitoring Officer and corporate complaints.

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.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In September 2025 the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and explained it did not consider the matters he raised amounted to a corporate governance issue needing formal intervention by the Monitoring Officer. Councils are entitled to exercise professional judgement when deciding whether concerns meet the threshold for Monitoring Officer involvement. It is not the Ombudsman's role to question such decisions unless there is evidence of fault in the way they were reached.
7. The Council accepted it did not respond to all Mr X's subsequent correspondence. However, the Council had already explained its position to Mr X and later confirmed that position remained unchanged. It also signposted him to the Ombudsman. There is not enough evidence that further responses would have resulted in a different outcome or the Council failed to consider Mr X’s concerns.
8. I recognise Mr X was frustrated by not receiving replies to all his correspondence and by the Council's handling of his corporate complaint. However, the injustice arising from this is limited. Given the Council had already provided its substantive position and there is no evidence that further consideration would have changed the outcome, I do not consider the injustice significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman