Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision around a Councillors conduct. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint about a Councillor’s conduct. He says the Monitoring Officer (MO) ignored evidence, including evidence of pre-determination, and refused to assess the complaint before policy was voted on. Mr X says the policy voted on impacted his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

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. Mr X complained to the Council about the conduct of a Councillor. He says the Councillor failed to disclose a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) before a vote on a policy that impacted his home.
7. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint before the vote, which meant the Councillor could vote on the policy when he says they shouldn’t have done. Mr X sent the complaint to the Council a week before the policy was due to be voted on. The Council publishes the process it follows for investigating allegations against Councillors which includes timescales. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in not completing the investigation within a week.
8. Mr X complained the MO failed to properly investigate his complaint and did not take account of the evidence he provided. However, the evidence shows the MO considered the complaint in line with the Council’s procedure and decided there was not enough evidence of a breach of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct. We are not an appeal body and cannot question decisions because someone disagrees with them. As there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the MO considered the complaint, we will not investigate this matter further.
9. Mr X complained that a councillor failed to declare a DPI and therefore should not have participated in the vote on the policy. The MO considered the matter and found no evidence that a DPI existed. If Mr X believes that decision is wrong, the appropriate body to consider the matter would be the police, as a failure to declare a DPI may constitute a criminal offence.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman