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

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about how the Council dealt with his complaint that a parish councillor had breached the Council’s code of conduct. He says he was given inaccurate information when submitting his complaint and that the Council failed to follow the correct process when investigating 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, or
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council about the actions of parish councillors in relation to the sale of land. The Deputy Monitoring Officer (DMO) assessed Mr X’s complaint and concluded that some elements were about the actions of the parish council, rather than councillors and therefore could not be considered as a standards complaint. The DMO did however conclude that Mr X’s complaint that a councillor had failed to disclose a pecuniary interest in land and had disclosed confidential information to a member of the public could be considered.
6. The DMO contacted the Councillor and made enquiries with the land registry. It compiled an investigation report which it shared with the Independent Person and Chair of the Standards Committee. The DMO concluded that the were no evidence that the Councillor had a pecuniary interest in the land and that the information discussed with the member or public was not confidential. The DMO therefore concluded that the complaint did not warrant further investigation.
7. 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 Mr X. I consider the Monitoring Officer’s response to Mr X 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.
8. There was a delay in the DMO completing their investigation and Mr X was provided with inaccurate information. However, the Council has apologised for these errors. I therefore do not consider that there is any outstanding significant injustice that would warrant further investigation of these points.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman