Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a councillor and the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint about this as he is not caused a sufficient level of injustice to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that his dropped kerb application was cancelled after the intervention of a councillor who does not represent the ward where Mr X lives. When Mr X asked the same councillor for help regarding a different matter, the councillor did not assist him. Mr X does not consider the Council properly considered his complaint and wants this to be done. Mr X wants the councillor to be removed from his post.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint response, the Council said the dropped kerb approval was cancelled as it did not meet the Council’s criteria and should not have been approved in the first place. While the councillor had some involvement in this, the decision to cancel the approval was a decision for the Council to make, not the councillor, and so I do not consider Mr X can be said to have been caused an injustice by the councillor’s actions.
7. Mr X complains the councillor should not have acted on information passed to him by a resident in Mr X’s ward, as the councillor is not their ward member. Mr X is unhappy that when he himself sent the councillor an email, about an issue in his ward, the councillor advised Mr X to contact his local councillor. Mr X considers this shows that the councillor ‘picks and chooses’ who he is going to assist and that this breaches the code of conduct for councillors.
8. I do not consider Mr X is caused a significant injustice from this aspect of his complaint. Though the councillor declined to directly assist himself, he did advise Mr X how he could raise the issue locally. I do not consider Mr X was prejudiced by this. I recognise the significance Mr X holds this in respect of the dropped kerb matter as he feels the councillor should not have become involved but as stated, the decision to cancel the approval was made by the Council not the councillor.
9. We will not investigate the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint as a separate matter as again, he is not caused a level of injustice from this to warrant our involvement. We also can have no involvement in any sanctions on councillors and so cannot achieve part of Mr X’s stated desired outcome.
10. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he is not caused a level of injustice from his complaint to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman