Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mr B’s written communication and questions in line with its corporate complaints procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council diverted formal public questions he says he submitted under its Constitution Standing Orders to its Corporate Complaints Procedure.
   Mr B says this meant the Council did not put his questions to Cabinet or to a Full Council. He complains the Council acted outside its powers, misrepresented its constitution and prevented elected members from seeing or answering his questions.
2. Mr B says he felt shut out of the democratic process as he could not raise legitimate concerns with elected members. He says the lack of transparency undermined his confidence in the Council and caused him anxiety. Mr B wants the Council to acknowledge its error, correct the public record and confirm public questions cannot be diverted into the complaints system.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant including the Council response. I also considered the Council’s constitution and corporate complaints procedure.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr B wrote to the Council in October 2025. He sent the Council a list of questions directed towards Cabinet members. Mr B said he wanted the questions included at the Cabinet meeting scheduled for later in the month.
7. When responding to Mr B the Council said, “there is no facility within the Council’s Constitution for public questions to be put at either meetings of the full County Council or of the Cabinet”. After considering Mr B’s questions it decided to respond to Mr B’s questions as ‘representations’ in line with its Corporate Complaints Procedure. The Council’s corporate complaints procedure lists he reason how representations differ from complaints such as when matters affect all or most people in its local area.
8. The Council said it directed Mr B’s questions to operational leads who responded on behalf of the Councillors Mr B had named in his correspondence. It said the responses would be shared with Democratic Services to ensure named Councillors could see the responses. The Council’s response letter lists each question Mr B asked and each answer it provided in response.
9. Mr B replied to the Council’s response and disagreed with the way it had dealt with his questions as a corporate complaint rather than what he said was a democratic process. He referred to the Council’s constitution and the parts he felt it had not adhered to. He asked the Council to withdraw the complaints response from its complaints register. Mr B also asked the Council to deal with his questions via the Standing Order route.
10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council’s Constitution outlines when members of the public can attend meetings. The Constitution does not refer to an option for public questions to be put to elected members during Cabinet or full Council meetings. There is not enough of evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with this matter.
11. The Council has discretion to deal with certain communication it receives as representations in line with its corporate complaints procedure. The Council used this route to provide answers to the questions Mr B asked by consulting with relevant staff. As Mr B received answers to his questions from the Council any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Furthermore, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman