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 complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about the actions of two local councillors. Mr X says the councillors voted on a report in the public interest and its possible referral to the police without declaring their personal interests. Mr X does not agree with the Monitoring Officer’s reasons for not investigating the matter and says the councillors should be prevented from holding public office.
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. (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agreed both councillors should have disclosed non-registerable interests and should not have taken part in the vote and withdrawn from the chamber.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 that the failure to disclose interests was caused by the councillors’ lack of understanding of the new code of conduct and guidance. Therefore, the Monitoring Officer decided not to refer the matter for further investigation and instead recommended training for the councillors.
I understand Mr X disagrees with this recommendation and says the councillors have been members of the Council for some time. 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.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman