Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about the behaviour of a parish councillor. Mr X says the councillor carried out doorstep canvasing in the area where he lives without permission. He says the councillor misused their position and acted inappropriately.

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 investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of parish councils. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Local Authorities have a duty to designate a Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure that the authority, its officers and members maintain the highest standards of conduct. Each council has different rules for dealing with complaints about code of conduct breaches.
6. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about parish councils. The Council is also not responsible for the actions of a parish council. We can consider the Council’s administration of a code of conduct complaint. However, where a decision has been made in line with the correct procedure, taking account of the relevant evidence, the Ombudsman 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 a formal investigation would not be appropriate. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns and the evidence available. They also consulted the Independent Person but decided they could not definitively prove or disprove there had been an intentional breach of the code. The Monitoring Officer did identify some issues and recommended the councillor issue a formal apology to Mr X and undertake refresher training.
8. I understand Mr X may disagree with the Monitoring Officer’s findings, but they were entitled to use their judgement to decide a formal investigation was not needed. As the Monitoring Officer dealt with Mr X’s concerns in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman