Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a code of conduct complaint against a councillor. 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 assessed the complaint, and it has apologised for the delays in responding to the complainant’s related correspondence.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss X, says the Council’s Monitoring Officer (MO) delayed in responding to correspondence about a code of conduct complaint against a councillor (Councillor Y), and has failed to answer all her questions about the complaint process.

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, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal, or
• we are satisfied with the action a Council has already taken.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)& (7))

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 Miss X, and the Council’s procedure for considering code of conduct complaints against councillors.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Code of conduct complaint process

6. The Council’s code of conduct complaint process says whenever the MO receives a complaint s/he will first seek to resolve the matter without the need for formal investigation. The MO may consult the Chair of the Standards Committee and/or the Independent Person where appropriate to achieve an informal resolution.
7. The MO must make such informal inquiries and investigations as s/he thinks fit to assess how a complaint should be dealt with. In particular, the MO may provide full details of the complaint to the subject member in order that they may respond to the allegation without the need for a formal investigation. If a complaint cannot be informally resolved, the MO may (amongst other options) reject the complaint (following consultation with the Independent Person and/or the Independent Chair of the Standards Committee, where the MO feels it appropriate).
8. And where a person is aggrieved by an MO’s decision not to investigate a complaint, they may ask the MO to reconsider the decision. The MO will then consult the Independent Person and the Chair of the Standards Committee, and take their views into account, before deciding whether to uphold or vary his/her original decision.

Summary of what happened

9. Miss X submitted a code of conduct complaint to the Council about the way a councillor had spoken to her on social media and in private messages.
10. The MO discussed the complaint with the Chair of the Standards Committee and noted Miss X could provide evidence of her discussion with Councillor Y if required. The MO concluded the matter was capable of being informally resolved. Whilst much of what Councillor Y had said was deemed to be reasonable, the MO accepted the comments could appear rather blunt and unnecessarily sarcastic. The MO said she would have an informal conversation with Councillor Y, with a view to the councillor apologising for any inadvertent offence caused.
11. Miss X expressed dissatisfaction with this proposal and chased the Council for updates in the following months.
12. The MO said Councillor Y recognised that being rude or sarcastic to Miss X was unacceptable and had expressed regret in that regard. The MO felt Councillor Y had reflected on her tone and manner, and had shown genuine remorse. The MO was satisfied this adequately resolved the matter, even though Miss X may not be happy with the outcome.
13. Miss X asked what her options were, following the closure of her complaint. The MO provided details of the Council’s review procedure, and asked Miss X if she would like to initiate this process.
14. Miss X confirmed she wanted the decision reviewed, but also raised questions about the MO’s original decision and the review process. Around the same time, the Council asked Miss X for copies of the social media discussions involving Councillor Y, which been requested by the Independent Person and Chair of the Standards Committee.
15. Miss X said she would provide this information once the Council had answered her questions, as she wanted to properly understand the process and make informed choices moving forward.
16. Miss X chased a response a month later. The MO said there appeared to be some ongoing misunderstanding, and apologised if she had added to this confusion. The MO attempted to reply to Miss X’s queries, and explained the review could not proceed until Miss X provided the requested copies of the social media threads.

Conclusion

17. The MO has apologised for misunderstanding/overlooking Miss X’s correspondence and for the delays in responding. I am satisfied this is an appropriate way to address this part of the complaint, so we will not pursue it further.
18. I appreciate Miss X is unhappy with the MO’s informal resolution and closure of her complaint. I also note she may have outstanding queries about what evidence Councillor Y submitted to the MO, and why the councillor was not required to apologise to Miss X.
19. But we do not provide a right of appeal against the MO’s decision. Rather, we focus on whether the correct procedure has been followed in reaching that decision.
20. Other than the acknowledged delay in responding to Miss X’s communications, I am satisfied the MO followed the Council’s code of conduct complaints procedure when reaching her decision and initiating the subsequent review process. It was for the MO to make whatever informal enquiries she deemed necessary and to make a decision when satisfied she had sufficient information. The review process allows for the MO’s decision to be reconsidered, in consultation with the Independent Person and Chair of the Standards Committee. If Miss X would like that review process to proceed, she should now submit the information they have previously requested.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its substantive decision on her code of conduct complaint, and it has apologised for the delays in responding to her associated communications.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman