The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council's refusal to investigate her complaint about a councillor’s conduct. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council has refused to investigate her complaint about a councillor’s conduct. She says this has caused her distress and affected her ability to attend council meetings. She wants the Council to investigate her complaint.
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)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
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. 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.
Cornwall Council’s procedures state that complaints will usually be rejected at the initial stage if, in the opinion of the Monitoring Officer, the member has remedied or made reasonable endeavours to remedy the issues to which the complaint relates and the complaint does not disclose sufficiently serious potential breaches of the Code of Conduct to merit further consideration.
The Monitoring Officer considered Ms X’s complaint. Ms X told them that since the incident, the councillor had written to her, accepting their behaviour was wrong by any standard and offered her an unreserved apology. Ms X said she did not accept the apology.
The Monitoring Officer considered the evidence. They accepted that Ms X’s allegations were not in dispute. However, they decided they were satisfied the councillor had remedied or made reasonable endeavours to remedy the issue, by writing to Ms X with an unreserved apology. On this basis, they rejected the complaint.
We will not investigate this complaint. The Monitoring Officer has discretion to decide what complaints will proceed to an investigation. They considered relevant evidence and explained to Ms X how they reached their decision. Although Ms X does not accept the apology provided by the councillor or the Monitoring Officer’s decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman