Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about standard committees because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to act against or properly investigate a number of town councillors who he says behaved improperly towards him in a public place.
2. Mr Y says this caused him distress and he has taken time to try to resolve the issue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y made a complaint about three town councillors who he says acted inappropriately towards him in a local pub. The Council did not investigate the complaint on the basis that it did not fall within the authority of the Council’s monitoring officer to investigate. It explained this was because the councillors were not acting in their capacity as town councillors at the time and were acting in their private capacity. Mr Y disagrees with this view, as he feels councillors should act in line with the code of conduct at all times. He therefore approached us.
7. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
8. Complaints that a member has failed to comply with the code of conduct should be dealt with in accordance with the authority’s agreed procedure. In general, a complaint will be dismissed at the initial stage if, for example, there is no breach of the code of conduct, it does not relate to behaviour in the member’s official capacity as a councillor, or the matter is so trivial it would not be in the public interest to pursue it further.
9. Here the Council has explained that it will not investigate the complaint on the basis the councillors were not acting in their official capacities at the time of the alleged issue. As this is in accordance with the Council’s policy and has been made having considered Mr Y’s account of the incident, the decision has been made properly. While Mr Y disagrees with the outcome, where there is no evidence of fault in the decision-making process, we cannot find fault. Consequently, we will not investigate.
10. Further, 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.
11. Here, while Mr Y may have been upset by the incident, this is not a serious loss, harm or distress, such that we would investigate. For this reason, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman