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.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his complaint about the conduct of a local councillor. Mr X says the Council did not follow the proper procedure and has misrepresented the evidence. Mr X says the Monitoring Officer’s response to his complaint was biased and the matter should have been dealt with by another officer due to a potential conflict of interest.
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 Council.
I considered 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. The Council carried out an initial assessment of Mr X’s complaint and decided the member’s code of conduct had not been breached. As Mr X disagreed, the complaint was reviewed by the Council’s Monitoring Officer. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns, the comments from the councillor complained about and the additional information provided by the Council’s policy and performance team. They also consulted the Independent Person before deciding not to take further action as a breach of the code of conduct had not been established.
Mr X says the complaint should not have been dealt with by the Monitoring Officer as they were appointed on the recommendation of a panel that included the councillor complained about. However, Mr X’s concerns about a potential conflict of interest were considered and addressed by the Council before it decided Mr X’s claims were without merit as the appointment of the Monitoring Officer cannot reasonably be considered a material conflict of interest and the Council’s chief executive is ultimately responsible for staffing matters.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the decision not to take any further action in relation to his complaint. But the Monitoring Officer was 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