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 the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with his complaint about the conduct of a councillor. Mr X says the Monitoring Officer failed to properly consider his complaint and there were long delays before he received a response.

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 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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered 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 does not provide an appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decisions. We are also unable to investigate the actions of the councillor complained about.
7. In this case, the Monitoring Officer considered the concerns raised by Mr X and contacted the councillor complained about. The Monitoring Officer also consulted the Independent Person before deciding not to investigate the complaint. The Monitoring Officer said the issues complained about did not relate to the councillor acting in their official capacity as a member of the Council and therefore the complaint was outside the scope of the member complaints procedure. The Monitoring Officer agreed the councillor had not updated the register of interest form, but decided it was not necessary to investigate the matter further as the register has now been updated.
8. I understand Mr X does not agree with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to decide the complaint should not be investigated and I am satisfied they have explained why they decided not to take further action. The Monitoring Officer’s decision is also in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints.
9. There was a delay before the Monitoring Officer responded to Mr X’s concerns. However, I do not consider that any injustice suffered by Mr X because of the delay would be significant enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered any significant injustice because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman