Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with his complaint about the conduct of a councillor. He says he lost trust in the Council. Mr X wants the Council to investigate his complaint and apologise to him.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council's Monitoring Officer failed to properly apply the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 when considering his complaint about a councillor's declaration of interests. He says a company owned by the councillor's spouse received payments in March 2025, but the relevant Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) was not registered until July 2025.
6. 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 that 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.
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 dealt with the matter in line with the Council’s rules for code of conduct complaints before deciding not to take further action. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns and the evidence available and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated. The Monitoring Officer also consulted the Independent Person.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the matter was not serious enough to investigate further. Therefore, it is unlikely I could find fault. 
10. Even if there were indications of fault with how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint I do not consider he has suffered any significant injustice. Mr X says he has lost trust in the Council and has spent time dealing with the issues he has complained about. But I do not consider any injustice suffered as a result would be significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman