Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, causing the complainant a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with a complaint he made about the conduct of a councillor during a Council meeting.

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 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 or comment on the actions of the councillor complained about. 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. Mr X complained to the Council that a councillor had breached the code of conduct due to their actions whilst Mr X spoke at a council meeting. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X's complaint, spoke to the councillor complained about and reviewed footage of the meeting.
8. The Monitoring Officer wrote to Mr X, apologising for the delay in responding to his complaint, and explaining that they did not consider there was a breach of the code of conduct by the councillor and therefore no further action would be taken.
9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Monitoring Officer reached their decision to take no further action. I also do not consider that the issues raised by Mr X about the councillor caused Mr X an injustice significant enough to warrant our investigation. Whilst I note that there was a delay in the Monitoring Officer considering Mr X’s complaint, this also did not cause Mr X a significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman