Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because the complainant has not been caused any significant injustice and it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained to the Council about comments made by a councillor on social media. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council dealt with his complaint. He says there was a long delay before he received a response, and the Monitoring Officer did not properly consider his concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the council.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Local Authorities have a duty to designate a Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure that the authority, its officers and members maintain the highest standards of conduct. Each council has different rules for dealing with complaints about code of conduct breaches.
5. The Ombudsman does not provide an appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decisions. We can only look at how the complaint was considered. We are also unable to investigate or comment on the actions of the councillor complained about.
6. In this case, the Monitoring Officer decided not to take any further action as there were insufficient grounds for an investigation and the issue complained about would not be serious enough to amount to a breach of the code of conduct. I understand Mr X may disagree, but this was a decision the Monitoring Officer was entitled to make.
7. There was a delay before the Council told Mr X it would not consider his complaint further. However, I cannot say Mr X has been caused significant injustice as a result. Although he would have been put to some trouble chasing the Council’s response to his complaint, this would not be significant enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman. The Council has also apologised for the inconvenience caused and it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve anything more for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not been caused significant injustice because of the Council’s actions. It is also unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve anything more for Mr X or add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman