The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a code of conduct complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a local councillor. Mr X says the councillor made a misleading statement during a planning committee meeting that may have impacted a planning decision. Mr X says the Monitoring Officer’s conclusion was unreasonable and irrational and his concerns should be investigated. Mr X has also complained there were delays before he received the Monitoring Officer’s response to his complaint.
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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 Monitoring Officer’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.
After considering Mr X’s complaint, the Monitoring Officer decided not to take any further action as there did not appear to be a potential breach of the code of conduct. I understand Mr X may not agree, but this was a decision the Monitoring Officer was entitled to make. I am also satisfied the Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns and the evidence available and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated in line with the Council’s rules for code of conduct complaints. The Monitoring Officer also consulted the Independent Person.
Mr X has complained the Monitoring Officer did not respond to his complaint within the timescales set out in its arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints. Mr X also says the complaint procedure is out of date as it should be reviewed every three years. However, I cannot say Mr X has been caused any significant injustice in this regard and the injustice caused by any delays responding to his complaint would not be significant enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault and Mr X has not suffered any significant injustice as a result of any delays in responding to his complaint or the Council reviewing its complaint policy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman