Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not instruct the Parish Council to hold an election. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Any complaints Ms X has about how the Council responded to her Freedom of Information request are for the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the outcome of a Parish Council election. She said as the election was uncontested, there was no requirement for residents to elect their preferred candidates. She wants the Council to reduce the number of seats available for election to ensure residents can vote. She also said the Council has not responded to her request for a copy of the Parish Council’s financial audit.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Parish Council held its elections in line with its guidance. There were the same number of candidates as seats, therefore the election was uncontested. Although Ms X disagrees with the number of seats on the Parish Council and this outcome, we will not investigate this complaint. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the elections were conducted to justify our involvement.
9. The Council dealt with Ms X’s request for a copy of the Parish Council’s financial audit as a freedom of information (FOI) request. It is reasonable for Ms X to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if the Council has not processed her request for information. That is because the ICO deals with complaints around FOI.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman