Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct by the Mayor of London. This is because the alleged breach did not cause the complainant a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Mayor of London has breached the Code of Conduct with comments he made about those that oppose the introduction of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). Mr X says he feels disrespected, harassed, and intimidated by the comments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The comments by the Mayor of London were not made directly to Mr X and therefore it is hard to conclude that he has suffered in the way he suggests. I therefore do not consider that Mr X has suffered any significant personal injustice because of the alleged comments and therefore will not investigate Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman