The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a complaint that councillors had breached the Council’s code of conduct. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council refuses to investigate his complaint about two councillors.
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 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained that two councillors deny having a meeting about a planning application. The Council’s Monitoring Officer assessed the complaint according to the Council’s arrangements for dealing with member complaints. The arrangements say the Monitoring Officer’s assessment should include seeking and reviewing any readily available information.
The Monitoring Officer decided Mr X had not provided enough evidence that the councillors took part in a meeting.
Mr X says there is CCTV footage which would prove whether a breach had occurred. However, he says he cannot access the footage due to data protection reasons as it would show members of the public. But he believes the Monitoring Officer should review the footage as it is readily available to him.
The Monitoring Officer says his assessment does not extend to investigating in detail Mr X’s claim that the councillors breached the code of conduct. He has sought information from the councillors who have confirmed they spoke briefly with a planning officer and did not attend a meeting as alleged by Mr X.
The Monitoring Officer also confirms Mr X has not provided any information or statements from others to substantiate his complaint, and the responsibility for this lays with him as the complainant.
The Council confirms the Monitoring Officer consulted the Independent Person who agreed with the decision not to uphold Mr X’s complaint and to take no further action.
I understand Mr X believes the CCTV footage is readily available information. However, the Council’s arrangements state complainants “must provide substantiated information to evidence the issue complained of”. The Monitoring Officer has reviewed Mr X’s complaint and decided Mr X has not provided enough information to substantiate his complaint. There is no requirement at this stage of the process for the Monitoring Officer to seeking information to substantiate Mr X’s complaint on his behalf. Therefore, no further action will be taken. This is in accordance with the published arrangements for dealing with complaints against councillors.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his complaint to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman