Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of material prior to a public committee meeting. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council did not make available to the public an important background paper for a public committee meeting when the agenda and papers were released. He says that when the document was released, it was not provided a full 5 working days in advance of the meeting, as required, so he had insufficient time to digest and scrutinise it even though it related to a matter of great importance 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council that a background committee paper which he wished to see was not provided to the public in advance of the public committee meeting with which he was concerned and that when it was provided to him it was not done so a full 5 working days in advance of the meeting.
6. The Council considered his complaint but said the document Mr X had requested was not a background paper. However, it confirmed that the paper would be placed on the relevant website and that in future anything issued into the wider public domain in relation to the matter would be shared with residents. It said it had looked at its review processes and that some of them would be made more robust, including a checker to confirm that any reference to documents in public committee reports have also been shared with affected residents.
7. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and while Mr X may not be satisfied with the outcome of his complaint to the Council, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Mr X did receive the paper and the Council has made undertakings to ensure residents are provided with relevant information.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman