The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a complaint about the conduct of two councillors. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered any personal injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about the actions of two local councillors. He says the councillors failed to disclose personal interests during a public debate and vote. Mr X says it is unacceptable the Monitoring Officer has excused their behaviour.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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.
The Ombudsman does not provide an appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decision. We are also unable to investigate or comment on the actions of the councillors complained about. We can consider the Council’s administration of a code of conduct complaint. However, 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.
In this case, the Monitoring Officer agreed both councillors should have disclosed non-registerable interests and should not have taken part in the vote and withdrawn from the chamber. However, the Monitoring Officer considered the failure to disclose interests was caused by the councillors’ lack of understanding of the new code of conduct and guidance. Therefore, the Officer recommended training for the councillors instead of referring the matter for investigation.
I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Monitoring Officer was entitled to decide not to investigate the actions of the councillors. As the Monitoring Officer dealt with Mr X’s concerns in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, it is unlikely I could find fault. Mr X has also not been caused any personal injustice by the councillors’ actions.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has also not suffered any personal injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman