Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint, concerning how the Council responded to a complaint about a councillor’s conduct. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to here as Mr Y, says the Council did not properly investigate a complaint about the conduct of a councillor during a panel hearing. Mr Y says the Council did not contact other witnesses to the event and failed to follow the correct procedure. Mr Y is seeking the Ombudsman’s intervention with this matter.

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 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Local authorities must have in place arrangements for investigating an allegation that a member has failed to comply with its code of conduct. Details of these arrangements and the code of conduct itself are decided locally and there may therefore be procedural differences between authorities. In general, the designated Monitoring Officer (MO) will assess complaints to decide if they merit further investigation. The process must also include the appointment of at least one Independent Person (IP), who has an advisory role. The IP must be consulted before the authority takes a decision on an allegation it receives.
7. The Ombudsman does not provide an appeal against an MO’s decision. We can only look at how the complaint was considered and cannot investigate or comment on the actions of the councillor complained about. Where a decision has been made in accordance with the correct procedure, we would not generally criticise the decision, even if the complainant disagrees with it.
8. In this case, the Council’s member complaints procedure states that the MO will, in consultation with the IP, assess a complaint to determine if formal investigation is merited. The MO and IP will also consider whether the resources required to investigate and determine a complaint are disproportionate to the allegation.
9. In the decision notice issued to Mr Y, the Council explained it had considered the allegations made and had determined that no further action was required. Central to this determination was a conclusion, reached by the MO and IP, that the resources involved in an investigation would be disproportionate and an inappropriate use of public funds.
10. Mr Y says that the Council failed to contact witnesses for further evidence. Because the Council decided not to investigate the matter, on the grounds that an investigation would be disproportionate to the allegations, obtaining further evidence becomes a moot point. This is a decision that the Council is entitled to take, in line with its procedure, and it is therefore unlikely that the Ombudsman would find fault in it doing so.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint, concerning how the Council responded to a complaint about a councillor’s conduct. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman