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 complainant’s concerns about how the Council dealt with his request for information was a matter best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about the actions of a councillor during a planning committee meeting. Mr X says the councillor was biased and predetermined the application. Mr X says the Monitoring Officer failed to reach a satisfactory conclusion and the officer should consider the complaint again.
2. Mr X also says the Council took too long to provide him with information following his freedom of information request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. The Ombudsman does not provide an appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decisions. We are also unable to investigate or comment on the actions of the councillor complained about. 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.
8. 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 as the code of conduct had not been breached. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns and the evidence available. They also consulted the Independent Person before reaching their decision. The Monitoring Officer did say the councillor’s emails following the committee meeting were ill advised but did not agree this showed predetermination of the application. The Officer also recommended the councillor attend training.
9. I understand Mr X may disagree with the Monitoring Officer’s findings, but they were entitled to use their judgement to decide the code of conduct had not been breached. 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.
10. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with his freedom of information request. However, Mr X has already complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is best placed to consider complaints such as this.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council in relation to his complaint about the conduct of a councillor. Mr X has already complained to the ICO about how the Council dealt with his request for information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman