Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council wrongly rejected a public question he submitted. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly rejected a public question he submitted. He says the Council misclassified his question as a complaint about a councillor’s conduct when it was a policy scrutiny question.
2. Mr X also complains there has been a denial of democratic scrutiny of the issue he wished to raise. He says there has been an inconsistent application of procedure.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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))

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

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. Mr X submitted a public question for consideration by Full Council. Mr X was told the Council considered his question was about a member communication and sought further explanation about matters that had previously been the subject of a standards complaint rather than a matter for determination by Full Council.
8. As Full Council is not responsible for deciding whether councillors have complied with the Code of Conduct, it was open to the Mayor to decide the question was not appropriate for consideration through the public question process.
9. The Council’s Constitution (Part 3A, sections 10.5 and 10.6) allows for the Mayor to reject a public question and his decision is final. The Mayor acted in line with the Council’s Constitution. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision not to accept Mr X’s question for consideration at Full Council to warrant an investigation.
10. There is also insufficient evidence of personal injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation. Even if there were to be an investigation, we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants. The Mayor is accountable to the electorate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council wrongly rejected a public question he submitted. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman