Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with concerns about the behaviour of a councillor. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about an email sent by a councillor. Mr X complained the councillor described his behaviour as “aggressive”. This upset Mr X and his wife. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council investigated 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))

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. The Monitoring Officer must ensure the authority, its officers and members maintain the highest standards of conduct.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 Monitoring Officer decided the councillor’s email was “robust”, but they had not breached the Council’s code of conduct. The Monitoring Officer decided it was not in the public interest to investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Monitoring Officer consulted the Council’s Independent Person in line with its published process.
8. 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.

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman