Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of code of conduct complaints made against the complainant. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decisions.

The complaint

1. Mr X, a councillor, complains about the Council’s handling of code of conduct (CoC) complaints made against him. He says the process was biased, procedurally unfair, and disproportionate, resulting in an unjust finding. In particular, he says:
• the investigation reports contained factual inaccuracies, misrepresented events, and lacked adequate reasoning for their conclusions.
• the CoC was not properly applied and his right to freedom of expression was not considered.
• political comments were wrongly treated as personal attacks, and legitimate criticism of council performance was deemed disrepute.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We can 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.
• information provided by the Council, which included the investigation report presented to the Standards Complaints Hearing Panel, and the subsequent decision notice.
• The Council’s ‘Councillor Code of Conduct – Procedure for dealing with complaints’.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is very unhappy about the outcome of the CoC complaints made against him.
6. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
7. I considered there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the CoC complaints made against Mr X, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful the Council has followed its CoC complaint process, taken Mr X’s representations into account, and explained the reasons for its decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the CoC complaints

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman