Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has continued to hold cabinet meetings remotely, contrary to a High Court judgement made in April 2021. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council decided to close his local recycling centre as the complaint is late.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has failed to comply with a High Court judgement which confirmed local authorities were required to hold meetings in person. He also complains the Council failed to follow the proper process in deciding to close a local recycling centre in 2018. Mr X says he was deprived of his right to attend the Council’s cabinet meetings and was not given adequate time to comment on the proposed closure of the recycling centre. He says he now has to drive much further to access another recycling centre.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to continue to hold its cabinet meetings remotely as we could not say the issue caused Mr X significant personal injustice. While Mr X argues he was unable to properly participate in the meetings there is no basis for us to say his participation would have changed the Council’s decisions or reduced the impact of its decisions on him personally.
8. However even if we did investigate it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. The High Court decision referred to by Mr X confirmed that meetings convened under the Local Government Act 1972 must be held in person after 6 May 2021 but the situation concerning cabinet meetings is less clear. This is because some local authorities have argued cabinet meetings fall under more recent legislation and whether these meetings can continue to be held remotely has not yet been tested by the courts. It is therefore unlikely in the current circumstances that we could say the Council’s decision to continue to hold its cabinet meetings virtually after 6 May 2021 amounts to fault, or that we could achieve anything further by investigating further.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision-making process dating back to 2018 as the complaint is late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to consider it further.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision to continue to hold its cabinet meetings remotely and the decision does not cause Mr X significant personal injustice in any event. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about its decision to close his local recycling centre in 2018 as the complaint is late.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman