Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with her complaint about the conduct of a councillor.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Local Authorities have a duty to designate a Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure that the authority, its officers and members maintain 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 decisions. We are also unable to investigate or comment on the actions of the councillor complained about.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Monitoring officer properly considered Ms X’s concerns and the evidence available before deciding not to investigate. The Monitoring Officer also consulted the Independent Person.
8. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the complaint should not be formally investigated.
9. Ms X says the Council did not consider her complaint in line with the correct procedure. She says there was a delay before she received the Monitoring Officer’s response, and a copy of her complaint was shared with the councillor she complained about. Ms X also says the standards procedure provided to her was out of date.
10. While the Monitoring Officer’s response was not sent within 14 days as outlined in the Council’s complaint criteria, I do not consider that the injustice Ms X suffered because of this delay would be significant enough to warrant an investigation. I am also satisfied the complaint was assessed against the criteria in place at the time even if Ms X was sent an outdated version.
11. Ms X says her complaint should not have been shared with the councillor complained about as this should only happen if the complaint is going to be formally investigated. The Council’s code of conduct complaint criteria is silent on whether the complaint details will be sent to the subject member at the initial assessment stage. However, the criteria does say the member may be contacted. The Monitoring Officer has explained that they also take account of guidance from the Local Government Association when dealing with complaints about the conduct of councillors.
12. Ms X says there was a data breach as her complaint information was shared with an officer not involved with the case. However, Ms X can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if she is concerned about how the Council handles personal data as this is the appropriate body to consider complaints about these matters.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman