Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered complaints about councillors. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complaints about the conduct of two councillors. Also, we will not reconsider matters on which we have already made a decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is addressing complaints about councillors using a predated investigation. He says this allows councillors to blame all future behaviour on a previous IT fault.

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.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Local Authorities have a duty to have a Monitoring Officer to ensure the legality and fairness of authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure the Council, its officers, and elected members uphold 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 decision. We can only look at how the complaint was considered. We are also unable to investigate or comment on the actions of the councillor complained about.
7. Mr X has a long running complaint with the Council about deleted emails. He complained in 2022 that two councillors had deleted emails from him without reading them. The Council advised Mr X that the emails were deleted due to an IT error.
8. Mr X says the IT report is inaccurate and predates his complaints about the Councillors. However the Council is entitled to reply on information provided by IT professionals. And as the decision maker, the Monitoring Officer is entitled decide what weight to give the evidence considered as part of the complaint.
9. In this case, the Monitoring Officer assessed the complaints. Following consultation with the Council’s Independent Person and the Council’s IT department they decided not to investigate the complaint as the councillors had not breached the code.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees. But this was a decision the Monitoring Officer was entitled to make. As the Monitoring Officer dealt with Miss X’s complaints according to the procedure for dealing with code of conduct complaints, it is unlikely I could find fault.
11. In August 2023, Mr X made another complaint about a councillor. We previously considered this complaint and decided not to investigate as Mr X’s own personal injustice is limited and insufficient to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. We will not revisit this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated his complaints about the councillors; and
• we will not reconsider a complaint about matters where we have already made a decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman