Summary: The complainant says the Council has broken the law by failing to publish its community governance review within 12 months. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. It is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. And we cannot achieve the resolution the complainant is seeking. Nor do we consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council has failed to publish its Community Governance Review (CGR) within 12 months. He says this is illegal and threatens to stifle local campaign and democracy.
2. Mr X says as a resident, the recommendations in the CGR on whether a town council should be established will have a direct effect on the representation he has at a local government level.
3. He wants the Council:
• to publish the CGR immediately
• to share the published CGR with interested parties
• to make it available for the community for review; and
• enact any recommendations contained within the CGR

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s responses to his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. Buckinghamshire Council (the Council), is a unitary council created in April 2020. It made up of the former county council and four district councils.
7. The former district council for Mr X’s area carried out a Community Governance Review. It published the result in December 2019.
8. The Council says the shadow executive for the new unitary council considered the CGR in January 2020. It decided to postpone any decision on the recommendations of the CGR until the new unitary council came into being in April 2020.
9. Due to the restrictions and impact of the Coronavirus outbreak from March 2020, the Council could not consider the CGR until July 2020.
10. The Council says it was told the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) wants to begin its electoral review. This review will consider the correct number of councillors for the new Council, with the location and size of the new Council wards.
11. The Council says the LGBCE has advised CGRs should not usually take place during boundary reviews. It may cause wards to be reviewed more than once and can be confusing for residents.
12. Following receipt of the comments from the LGBCE guidance the Council decided to defer considering the CGR until after the Electoral Review is completed or when the LGBCE confirm it is appropriate to do so.
13. In deciding whether there has been maladministration or service failure causing injustice, the Ombudsman must weigh up all the evidence, including any mitigating factors, to come to a view.
14. It appears reasonable that while the CGR was carried out by one of the former district councils, the shadow executive for the unitary authority deferred the decision on the CGR until the new Council came into existence in April 2020.
15. It is unfortunate the matter was not considered until July 2020. However, the Council was subject to restrictions due to the Coronavirus lockdown.
16. Mr X says the Council’s decision to defer the decision on the CGR until the outcome of the boundary review is breaking the law. The Council says it is acting according to guidance it has been given. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to adjudicate on disputed points of law.
17. Our role is to consider complaints of maladministration and service failure causing injustice. We will not investigate matters where the personal injustice caused by the fault is not significant. This means that we will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• The alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter; or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time
18. We will not usually investigate when the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider political or community campaign.
19. Mr X says the deferral of the CGR decision has a direct effect on how he is represented at a local government level. However, I do not consider this is a sufficient personal injustice which affects him specifically as opposed to any other resident where he lives.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I will not investigate this complaint. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the resolution Mr X is seeking. Nor do we consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants out involvement.
21. If he considers the Council has acted illegally, Mr X should seek legal advice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman