Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision not to investigate a local councillor for breach of the member’s Code of Conduct. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council refusing to investigate her complaint that a local councillor had broken the Members’ Code of Conduct by giving out data on a traffic improvement scheme which she says had been confirmed to be incorrect.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Ms X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X says a local councillor repeated incorrect traffic statistics at a council meeting and his personal twitter feed which she believes is a breach of the Members’ Code. She says residents in her area are against the scheme and the councillor failed to represent their views. She complained to the Council’s Monitoring Officer who is responsible for member conduct, but he refused to investigate the complaint.
5. The Monitoring Officer said the councillor was expressing his own view of the traffic figures and was acting in a political capacity when he expressed his views. Councillors can express views which may be contrary to their residents’ views, but this is not a breach of the Code.
6. The Council says the councillor was not in breach of the Code and that his view on the statistics was his interpretation. The low traffic neighbourhood scheme which is affecting Ms X’s area is subject to a temporary experimental traffic order which will be subject to consultation and review before it ends. The order was one of a number approved by Council committee and not by the councillor in question.
7. The Ombudsman may investigate the way a council investigated a complaint about member conduct, but it is not our role to question the merits of a decision where there is no evidence of fault. The Monitoring Officer’s decision on this complaint was that there was no breach of the Code to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman