Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with concerns about the behaviour of a parish councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the behaviour of a parish councillor. Mr X says the councillor shouted at him and behaved in an uncappable way during a meeting. Mr X is unhappy with the response the Council’s Monitoring Officer sent him. Mr X says he was not given a chance to respond before the Council reached a final decision. He is also unhappy with the time taken to respond to his complaint.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of parish councils. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Local Authorities have a duty to designate a Monitoring Officer. The Monitoring Officer must ensure the authority, its officers and members maintain the highest standards of conduct.
6. Each council has different rules for dealing with complaints about alleged breaches of the councillor’s code of conduct. But the Monitoring Officer will normally consider the complaint to decide if the jurisdictional tests and local assessment criteria are met and if further action is needed. If the Monitoring Officer decides not to take further action, they will contact the complainant and give reasons for their decision.
7. We cannot investigate complaints about parish councils. The Council is also not responsible for the actions of a parish council. But we can consider a district council’s handling of a code of conduct complaint if it is about a parish councillor. However, where a decision has been made in line with the correct procedure, taking account of the relevant evidence, we will generally not criticise the decision, even if the complainant does not agree with it.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer dealt with the matter in line with the Council’s rules for code of conduct complaints before deciding not to take further action. The process on the Council’s website only requires a draft finding to be sent to the complainant when an investigation is carried out. But because the Monitoring Officer found there had only been a minor breach of its Code of Conduct, this was not necessary. They decided that because the councillor had apologised during a public meeting no further action was needed. In line with the Council’s policy, they consulted one of the Council’s Independent Persons about their decision.
9. I understand Mr X is unhappy with the Monitoring Officer’s response. But they considered Mr X’s complaint in line with the Council’s policy and explained their decision. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
10. Also, it is not a good use of our resources to investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue if we are not going to look at the matter which led to the original complaint. We will not therefore consider any delay in responding to Mr X.

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman