Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a councillor lied in relation to road closure proposals in the Borough. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the code of conduct complaint against the councillor.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has brushed aside his concerns about lies put forward by a councillor in support of ‘low traffic neighbourhoods’ in the Borough. Mr X says the councillor ignores the people he is supposed to represent in order to further his own personal agenda.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. And 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 X and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Ombudsman does not offer a right of appeal against a Council’s decision on complaints about member conduct. However, we can consider if there was fault in the way the Monitoring Officer or Standards Committee considered the complaint. 
6. In this case, the Monitoring Officer considered the information Mr X provided about the actions of the councillor. He also sought the views of the Independent Person before deciding not to take further action.
7. The Monitoring Officer’s investigation was proportionate to the concerns raised. He considered the available evidence and reached a conclusion based on his professional judgement. He also explained his reasons to Mr X.
8. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision on his complaint. But I see no evidence of fault in the way the decision was reached, so the Ombudsman will not pursue the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman