Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 013 838)

Category : Transport and highways > Other

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 22 Jan 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council records decisions made under its delegation scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant and investigation.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complains the Council’s meeting records do not name the officers delegated responsibility for future decisions about parking charges. She says this lacks transparency and public accountability for decision making.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. In its complaint response to Ms X, the Council explained that naming the delegated officers job level and role was the most appropriate way to set out the delegation in the records. It said it did not name the specific officers as officers may change roles or leave the Council and it would not be practical to update the delegation decision record each time a new officer came into post. It said there was information about the officers responsible for delegated decisions on its website.
  2. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has appropriately explained why it records the job level and does not name delegated officers in its meeting records and how Ms X can find out who is responsible for delegated decisions. The job role as recorded is sufficient to identify the delegated officer and so this appears to be in line with its delegation scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings