The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate a complaint that a Councillor breached the Code of Conduct. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council’s Monitoring Officer was predetermined when she decided not to investigate his complaint that a Councillor had breached the Code of Conduct.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the Mr X and the Council. This includes Mr X’s exchange of emails with the Monitoring Officer.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s complaint according to the arrangements for dealing with complaints about Councillors. She decided: the Councillor’s had not breached the Code of Conduct An investigation would not be a proportionate response An investigation was not in the public interest.
We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong just because the complainant disagrees with it.
We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. Having followed the correct procedure this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman