Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about allegations of bias by the Authority or interference in electing Chairperson for a statutory consultee. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Authority conflicts with its statutory duty to conserve and enhance wildlife because it is biased towards grouse shooting moorland owners. He also says the Authority prevented him from standing for Chair of the Local Access Forum (LAF).
2. Mr X wants the Authority to admit it is biased and apologise. He wants an independent enquiry into his concerns and disciplinary actions taken against the Officers.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Authority.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says he told the Council he has been the victim of online abuse from a pro-shooting group and its supporters on social media. The Authority says it provided its’ standard response which is to thank him for providing the information. It also confirmed he was correct in reporting the matter to the Police if he felt intimidated.
7. Mr X has provided an email from a third party. This includes a concern about a protestor against grouse shooting. A Member of the Authority replied saying harassment would not be tolerated in any other situation and is a criminal offence. He also commented that he understood the Police were investigating and had made an arrest.
8. I have seen no evidence showing the Authority’s involvement in the investigation into the protestors. The response to Mr X is correct in that he should report incidents of abuse to the Police.
9. Mr X also complains an Officer telephoned him to tell him he is not suitable to be LAF Chair and by implication not suitable to be a LAF member at all.
10. There is no recording of the telephone call. In its response to the complaint the Authority says the Officer was interviewed. She says the call was to make Mr X aware of her concerns about how his ‘external voice’ was perceived following concerns made from people both inside and outside the Authority.
11. The Authority says the Officer was clear in that she did not say Mr X was unsuitable as an LAF member, or to run for the position of Chair of the LAF. Nor did she consider him to be biased.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the information he provided does not prove the Authority is biased towards moorland owners. Nor has he provided evidence which shows the Authority prevented him from standing for the position of Chair of the LAF or required him to resign from the LAF.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman