Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about standard committees because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and Mrs Y has not suffered a significant enough injustice to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained the Council failed to properly investigate the alleged bias of a councillor who she says misled a solicitor.
2. Mrs Y says she feels her trust in the Council has been breached and the councillor has not been impartial or honest in the decision making process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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

4. I considered information Mrs Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Following a planning decision by the Council, allegations of bias were made about a councillor. The Council instructed a solicitor to carry out an independent review of the councillor’s conduct during the planning process. The review found no evidence of misconduct or bias by the councillor. The Council’s monitoring officer reviewed the report the solicitor issued and confirmed the reviews findings.
6. Local Authorities have a duty to appoint a Monitoring Officer, also known as an independent person, to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure the authority, its officers, and members maintain the highest standards of conduct.
7. While Mr Y may disagree with the Monitoring Officer’s decision, and believes the report is inaccurate, they were entitled to use their professional judgement. As the Council sought a review from an independent third party, considering the evidence including the recordings of various meetings held about the planning application, before a further review was carried out by the Monitoring Officer, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer properly considered the concerns about bias before deciding there was no poor conduct.
8. Further, I do not consider the alleged inaccuracies would have had a significant impact on the outcome of the investigation into bias. Consequently, as the decision was based on relevant evidence and consideration, it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the decision was reached. We will therefore not investigate this complaint.
9. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
10. While Mrs Y clearly feels strongly about the matter, we would not consider her loss of faith in the councillor to be a significant loss, harm or distress. Consequently, as there is not enough significant injustice, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and Mrs Y has not suffered a significant enough injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman