Summary: We will not investigate Mrs J’s complaint about the Council’s response to a code of conduct complaint she made against two councillors. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs J, complains about the Council’s decision not to investigate her complaint that 2 councillors breached the code of conduct.

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 Mrs J and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs J complained to the Council under its Standards Arrangements that 2 councillors had breached the code of conduct. She said they had harassed and intimidated her and her family following an earlier complaint she made about them.

7. The Council’s procedure for dealing with complaints about councillors says:

“Complaints alleging that councillors have breached their Code of Conduct must be made to the Monitoring Officer … who will review it along with an Independent Person. An Independent Person is someone who is recruited by the Council but is not a Councillor. They will then decide whether any action should be taken and if the matter should be referred to the Complaints Sub-Committee.”

The Council’s criteria for dealing with standards complaints states:

“Question 5: the matter complained of clearly relates to an incident or issue when the member has been acting in his/her official capacity as an elected member. If the answer is no then the complainant and subject member to be informed that no further action will be taken in respect of the complaint as this is not a breach of the code of conduct.”

8. The Council says the Monitoring Officer and Independent Person considered the complaint. They decided the councillors were not acting in their official capacity as elected members during the incidents Mrs J complained of. They decided it was a dispute between neighbours which is not a matter covered by the code of conduct. Having followed the correct procedure, this is a decision the Council is entitled to take.
9. We do not offer a right of appeal against a council’s decision on a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. In this case the Council followed the process set out in its procedure for dealing with complaints about councillors. It has explained its decision to Mrs J. I consider the Monitoring Officer’s response gives a reasoned explanation of the decision reached. Without evidence of fault in the process the Council followed we have no powers to question the merits of the decision reached.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered her complaint about the councillors conduct.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman