Summary: Ms B says a local Councillor breached the Member’s code of conduct and the Council failed to properly investigate that. There is no evidence of a breach of the code of conduct and the Council dealt with the matter properly. However, it should have explained its decision there was no evidence of a breach of the code of conduct to pursue in more detail. An apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complained:
• a local Councillor breached the Member’s code of conduct (code of conduct); and
• the Council failed to properly investigate the alleged breach.
2. Ms B says as a result her mental health has been severely affected and she had to take time off work and waste hours speaking to different Council departments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Ms B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
7. Ms B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

8. The Member's code of conduct says Councillors must:
• act with integrity and honesty;
• act lawfully;
• treat everyone fairly and with respect;
• lead by example and act in a way that secures public confidence in the role of Councillor.
9. It sets out the standards which cover:
• respect;
• bullying, harassment and discrimination;
• impartiality;
• confidentiality and access to information;
• disrepute;
• use of position;
• use of local authority resources and facilities.

What happened

10. Ms B manages her sister’s property on her behalf. That property is rented out to a tenant. I will refer to Ms B as if she were the landlord throughout this statement as she acts on behalf of the landlord.
11. Ms B’s tenant complained to the Council about damp and mould in the property in December 2022. An officer from the Council’s private housing team dealt with the matter and liaised with Ms B about that. Ms B arranged for a damp survey which identified some measures which needed to be completed. Ms B and the Council officer dealing with the case then liaised about the arrangements Ms B had put in place to address the issues raised in the report. When some of those matters were addressed Ms B provided the Council’s officer with evidence of the work undertaken.
12. In January 2023 Ms B’s tenant contacted a local Councillor about the damp and mould issues in the property. That local Councillor emailed officers to pass on the information provided by Ms B’s tenant and asked officers to update her. Ms B’s tenant also provided the Councillor with a video showing them refusing access to a contractor Ms B had arranged to visit the property to carry out some damp work. The Councillor asked the tenant why access had been refused and the tenant explained it was because the contractor did not have any ID. The Councillor passed the details onto the local ward Councillors.
13. A manager from a different team asked for a damp survey. That manager told the Councillor about the actions being taken and the Councillor passed that information onto Ms B’s tenant.
14. Ms B telephoned the Councillor and explained what had taken place to that point in terms of the damp survey she had commissioned and the work she had undertaken. Ms B told the Councillor the tenant had refused access and provided her with a copy of the video showing that. Ms B questioned why the Council had asked for a further damp survey. The Councillor contacted officers, copying in the officer Ms B had told the Councillor she was dealing with, to tell them what Ms B had said. The Councillor asked officers to contact Ms B and decide whether the survey she had submitted was satisfactory and, if not, to let her know why and what the next steps were. The Councillor then emailed Ms B to tell her what she had done.
15. Following further internal correspondence the manager that had asked for a new report clarified he had done so because he did not consider the one provided specified accurately enough what work should be carried out.
16. Ms B served the tenant with a notice of seeking possession. That prompted the tenant to contact the Councillor. The Councillor passed that information onto officers and asked whether they could advise the tenant what to do next. The Councillor also asked whether officers could liaise with the landlord and tenant to reschedule the remedial works as the tenant had refused entry previously.
17. Ms B put in a complaint, alleging the Councillor had breached the code of conduct. The monitoring officer logged that as a code of conduct complaint and asked Ms B to complete the code of conduct complaint form. Ms B did that and the monitoring officer asked for the Councillor’s comments on the allegations. The Councillor provided a response, along with a copy of the email correspondence about the issues.
18. The monitoring officer asked officers for a full chronology from the housing perspective. The monitoring officer then discussed the complaint with Ms B and arranged a meeting with the independent person to discuss the complaint. After consideration of Ms B’s comments, the Councillor’s response and the documentary evidence the monitoring officer decided there was no evidence of a breach of the code of conduct to pursue. The monitoring officer emailed Ms B to tell her that.

Analysis

19. Ms B says a Councillor breached the Member's code of conduct and the Council then failed to properly investigate the alleged breach. Ms B has also set out where the Councillor was at fault, referring to her:
• wrongly contacting multiple departments and failing to contact the officer dealing with the case despite Ms B providing her with details of the officer, thereby wasting Council resources;
• making no attempt to contact Ms B and instead acting on the partial information provided by Ms B's tenant which is evidence of bias;
• putting pressure on officers to seek a second report and resolve the matter for the tenant even though officers had already signed off an independent report, which is evidence of bias;
• ignoring evidence Ms B had provided showing her tenant was preventing access to the property which again shows evidence of bias.
20. I have considered the documentary evidence which includes evidence of contact between Ms B's tenant and the Councillor, evidence of contact between the Councillor and Ms B and evidence of contact between the Councillor and Council officers. I am satisfied that evidence shows the Councillor only made enquiries of officers following contact by Ms B's tenant. That is part of the normal role for a Councillor and is not evidence of bias. The emails show the Councillor simply passed on the information she had received and asked officers to update her on what was happening and to liaise with the tenant and Ms B.
21. The emails also show when the Councillor spoke to Ms B she again contacted officers to put forward the points Ms B had made. That included queries about whether a further report was necessary given Ms B had said she already had a damp survey which the Council had accepted. The Councillor asked officers to discuss that with Ms B. None of those contacts show the Councillor took sides or that she put pressure on officers to take action. Rather, the documentary evidence shows the Councillor simply referred the matter to officers to deal with and offered no opinion. I have therefore not identified any evidence of a breach of the code of conduct.
22. In reaching that view I am aware Ms B says the Councillor should have contacted her to get her view of events rather than contacting other departments. However, that is not the Councillor's role. The Councillor's role is to respond to issues raised by constituents and it is not fault for the Councillor to contact officers when the tenant contacted her. Nor is there any evidence at that stage the Councillor had details of which Council departments were involved. It is not the Councillor's role to investigate what was happening. That is properly a matter for officers and it is therefore not fault for the Councillor to refer the matter to officers rather than seeking to identify Ms B and contact her. As I have made clear, the documentary evidence shows only that the Councillor referred the matter to officers to deal with and there is no evidence in any of the Councillor's communications to suggest she was taking the side of the tenant. I am also satisfied once Ms B provided details of the officer she was dealing with the Councillor copied that officer into her communications with other Council departments.
23. I understand Ms B's concern given she was asked to have a further survey carried out when her understanding was the survey already provided to the Council was satisfactory. However, although Ms B believes the Councillor asked for this further survey that is not supported by the documentary records. In fact, the documentary records show when Ms B raised concerns about having to get another report the Councillor went back to officers to ask whether this was necessary given Ms B had already had a survey completed. The documentary records show it was a manager from another team that asked for a further report and there is no evidence that was due to any pressure from the Councillor. It would have been good practice for that officer to have checked first whether there was any involvement by other departments before asking for a further survey or to have contacted Ms B to find that out. However, as the Council did not go ahead with a further report I do not intend to pursue the point further.
24. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the code of conduct complaint. I say that because I note the monitoring officer spoke to Ms B about her complaint, forwarded the written complaint to the Councillor for comment, asked officers for details of what had happened, considered the emails between the Councillor and officers/Ms B/the tenant and consulted the independent person. As I said earlier, I have seen the same evidence the monitoring officer has seen and there is no evidence in the Councillor's communications to suggest there was a breach of the code of conduct. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for deciding not to pursue the matter further.
25. The email to Ms B telling her about the Council's decision is brief though. All that email says is the monitoring officer has considered the information Ms B provided and the information provided by the Councillor and the officer's view was that the code of conduct had not been invoked. The only clarification of that point was that the monitoring officer was satisfied the Councillor was trying to be helpful to both parties. Given Ms B had made specific allegations about where she felt a breach of the code of conduct had taken place I would have expected the Council to address those points and explain, without sharing confidential information, what evidence it had seen to satisfy itself those breaches had not occurred. Failure to do that is fault, has undermined Ms B's confidence in the process and has left her feeling the Council did not consider the points she had made properly.
26. Given I am satisfied there is no evidence of a breach of the code of conduct and as the matter was considered properly by the Council I recommended the Council apologise to Ms B for not explaining its decision in relation to the points she had raised when telling her about the outcome of its consideration of her code of conduct complaint. I also recommended the Council remind the monitoring officer of the need to ensure when communicating decisions following code of conduct complaints that a proper explanation is given of the reasons why the Council is not satisfied there is evidence of a breach of the code of conduct to pursue. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Ms B; and
• remind the monitoring officer of the need to ensure they explain the reasons for decisions, addressing the areas raised as alleged breaches of the code of conduct, when telling those who have complained about the outcome of the consideration of a code of conduct complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Ms B an injustice. The action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman