Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council refused to consider a complaint about a Parish Councillor’s conduct. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Additionally, the Council’s actions have not caused a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council would not investigate her concerns about a member of the Parish Council, as she had not specified what part of the Code of Conduct the Councillor had breached.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

My assessment  

5. The Council's Monitoring Officer is responsible for considering allegations that an elected member has breached the Members' Code 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 also cannot investigate the actions of Parish Councillor. Where a decision has been made in line with the correct procedure, taking account of the relevant evidence, the Ombudsman will generally not criticise the decision, even if the complainant does not agree with it.
7. In Mrs X’s complaint to the Council, she said a Parish Councillor had breached the Code of Conduct. She described concerns about how they were running Parish Council meetings. In response, the Council explained it was not responsible for the running of the Parish Council but could consider complaints about member’s behaviour. It asked Mrs X to provide more information about which part of the Code of Conduct she considered the Councillor to have breached and to provide supporting evidence.
8. Although Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate for the following reasons:
• Firstly, we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. There is nothing to suggest the Council’s actions have caused Mrs X a significant injustice.
• Secondly, the Council has considered the information she provided and does not consider it a Code of Conduct complaint. It has asked Mrs X for more information about the Councillor’s behaviour and directed her to the relevant policy. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
• Finally, the Council has received further complaints about the Parish Councillor with similar concerns. The Monitoring Officer discussed these with the Independent Person. They both agreed the complains were not about Code of Conduct. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it considered the concerns to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Nor have the Council’s actions caused her a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman