Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Councillor and the Council’s decision not to investigate further. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and any injustice is not significant enough to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains a councillor failed to provide a substantive response to his correspondence. He also complains the Council did not properly investigate his complaint about the Councillor. Mr X says this has left him feeling disillusioned with the process. He wants the Council to review the Councillor’s correspondence, review its complaint handling, and provide a suitable remedy.

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. Mr X’s complaint concerns the way an elected councillor responded to his correspondence. The Council’s Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s complaint and explained the Council had no power to require councillors to respond to correspondence or to specify the level of detail they should provide. As the complaint did not allege a breach of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, the Monitoring Officer decided it would not be proportionate to pursue the matter through the Council’s member complaints process.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision because someone disagrees with it. Instead, we consider whether the organisation followed the correct process in reaching its decision. Where there is no evidence of fault in that process, we cannot question the merits of the decision itself. The available evidence shows the Council considered Mr X's concerns and explained the reasons for its decision. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
8. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice. He said he has been left disillusioned by the matter. But I do not consider this alleged injustice would be significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
9. Mr X also complained about the way the Council handled his complaint. As we are not investigating the substantive matter, it would not be a good use of public resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling as a stand-alone issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and any injustice is not significant enough to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman