Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer considered a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his complaint about the conduct of an elected member of the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached that is likely to have affected 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. I have also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We do not provide an appeal against the Council’s decision; we can only consider how the Council considered Mr X’s complaint. Further, it is not our role to investigate or comment on the actions of the councillor Mr X complained about.
7. The Council’s Monitoring Officer considered the information Mr X provided about the actions of the councillor. She also sought the views of the Independent Person before producing a report that was considered by the Council’s Consideration Sub-Committee (Audit and Standards). The Sub-Committee decided to tale no further action.
8. The Monitoring Officer’s investigation was proportionate to the concerns raised. She considered the available evidence and prepared a report based on her professional judgement. Following the Sub-Committee’s decision. she also explained the reasons to Mr X.
9. The Council’s consideration of Mr X’s complaint took some while to complete. While I recognise this may have been frustrating for him, I do not consider unreasonable delay caused him injustice that warrants our investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it does meet the tests in our Assessment Code.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman