Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

Cumbria County Council

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 22-006-141 Sector Other Categories Category Councillor Conduct And Standards Decided 17 August 2022

View Cumbria County Council scorecard

Full decision

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 a local councillor. 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 behaviour of a local councillor. Mr X says the councillor refused his request to ask a follow up question at a Council committee meeting and failed to respond to his emails. Mr X says he has been treated discourteously and unfairly and believes the councillor breached the member’s code of conduct.

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 decisions. We are also unable to investigate or comment on the actions of the councillor 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, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer dealt with the matter in line with the Council’s rules for code of conduct complaints before deciding not to take further action as the code of conduct had not been breached. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns and the evidence available.

I understand Mr X may disagree with the Monitoring Officer’s findings, but they were entitled to use their judgement to decide the code of conduct had not been breached. 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

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving Cumbria County Council

Reference Date Summary Outcome
22-011-436 20 Dec 2022 Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about faulty signals at a pedestrian crossing. This is because the issue has … Other
22-009-060 19 Dec 2022 Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed investigating her complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. She … Upheld
22-008-363 19 Dec 2022 Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mrs J’s complaint about the appeal panel failing to follow procedure when … Upheld
22-012-105 02 Dec 2022 Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to Mr X’s fence allegedly arising from the Council’s actions … Other
21-009-380 21 Nov 2022 Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s response to various highways matters which he says caused him avoidable distress and … Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation