Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice because of any delays.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with his complaint about the conduct of a councillor. Mr X says the issues he raised were not properly considered and he disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s reasons for not investigating his concerns. Mr X also says there was a delay before he received the Monitoring Officer’s response.

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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided Mr X and 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. 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 this case, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer properly considered Mr X’s complaint before deciding not to take further action. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns and the evidence available and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated. The Monitoring Officer also consulted the Independent Person.
8. I understand Mr 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. The Monitoring Officer’s decision not to investigate was also in line with the Council’s arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints.
9. Mr X says there was a delay before he received the Monitoring Officer’s response. However, the injustice suffered because of any delay would not be significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has not suffered significant injustice because of any delays.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman