Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled a complaint about a sitting councillor. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and the complainant suffering a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr X) complains about the actions of a sitting councillor of the Council. He says:

• Complaint 1: The councillor made racist comments to a member of the public while campaigning locally for his political party.
• Complaint 2: The councillor sent an email to him during the Council’s investigation of the first issue, the content of which amounted to bullying and/or harassment.

2. In summary, Mr X says the Council failed to take any action against the councillor which has made him feel not heard. He also says the Council’s lack of action gives the impression racism is not taken seriously. As a desired outcome, Mr X wants the Council to investigate properly and take appropriate action.

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, 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has investigated both parts of the complaint under its Members Code of Conduct. It says it is unable to respond to the first and substantive issue because the alledged comments were not made during the course of the councillors duties. Instead, it says the comments are alleged to have been made whilst the councillor was canvassing on behalf of his political party during the run up to the general election. The councillor was not acting on behalf of the council in connection with an administrative function and so there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council for not providing a response and outcome to this issue.
6. The second part of the complaint concerns the councillor in question emailing the complainant in his role referring to articles in the press about accusations he had acted improperly in the past. I recognise Mr X says the email amounts to bullying and harassment, though the Council does not accept this. Regardless of fault, I do not accept that Mr X has suffered serious loss, harm or distress by reason of the issues raised. In considering this, I note the alledged comments referred to in the first issue were not actually made to Mr X but a resident of the Council. The contents of the email referred to in the second part of the complaint was limited to questioning a matter in the public domain. There is insufficient evidence of Mr X suffering a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restrictions I outline a paragraph three (above) apply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman