Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a community governance review. This is because any delay has not caused a significant injustice and further investigation is unlikely to find fault or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of himself and a group of residents about flaws in the Council’s community governance review process. He says errors and delay led to the Council reaching a wrong decision. He wants the Council to conduct a fresh community governance review led by appropriately experienced officers.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X and a group of residents asked the Council to conduct a community governance review in 2019. They wanted the Council to review and amend the Parish Council boundaries in their area.
6. The Council completed the review in 2022. The review team recommended the Parish Council boundaries remain unchanged. The Council agreed with this and decided not to make any amendments. However, the Council agreed to review the matter again in future.
7. We should not investigate this complaint. Mr X says the review was not completed within the statutory timeframe. However, the Council kept Mr X updated on the reasons for the delay and so I do not consider this caused a significant injustice.
8. He also says the Council considered evidence only available after the statutory timeframe had passed. He says this evidence should be disregarded. Despite any delay, the Council is entitled to consider all relevant factors and evidence available at the time of completing the review. It is unlikely further investigation would find fault with this.
9. The Council appropriately considered Mr X and the residents petition, information gathered during the review process and the recommendations of the review team before reaching its decision. Although Mr X disagrees with the review’s findings, it is unlikely that further investigation would find fault with this process or would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any delay did not cause a significant injustice and it is unlikely further investigation would find fault or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman