Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s Monitoring Officer. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s Monitoring Officer has failed in their duty by refusing to investigate and prepare a report, despite receiving evidence of unlawful decisions made by Council officers. He says the Monitoring Officer has a statutory duty to investigate and their decision not to do so is unlawful. He wants the Monitoring Officer to investigate his complaint.

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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils have a duty to designate a Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer has several duties. As part of their role, the Monitoring Officer has a duty to prepare a report to the council where it appears to them that any council proposal, decision or omission has, or is likely to be, in breach of any enactment or rule of law.
7. The Ombudsman does not provide an appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decisions. Where a decision has been made in line with the correct procedure, taking account of the relevant evidence, the Ombudsman will generally not criticise the decision, even if the complainant does not agree with it.
8. Mr X states the Council’s Monitoring Officer has failed in their statutory duty by refusing to investigate, despite having evidence of unlawful decisions being made by its housing officers.
9. In their response to Mr X, the Monitoring Officer said it had considered Mr X’s complaint but did not agree there was evidence of any council decision or action that was, or was likely to be, unlawful. Therefore, they would not investigate further or prepare a report.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. It is for the Monitoring Officer to decide whether any council actions or decisions are, or appear to be, unlawful and when the duty arises for them to prepare a report. The Council’s Monitoring Officer has appropriately considered Mr X’s concerns but decided not to take further action. This is a decision they are entitled to take. Although I accept Mr X disagrees with this decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s ’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence off fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman