The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.
The complaint
Mr X has complained about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor.
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: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(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
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 town council or the councillor complained about. 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, the Monitoring Officer initially said they would not investigate Mr X’s complaint as it had been over three months since the alleged incident occurred. Mr X said the Council’s reason for not investigating his complaint was incorrect as his concerns were about recent issues. However, I do not consider Mr X has been caused any significant injustice because of any fault with the Monitoring Officer’s original decision reason.
The Monitoring Officer has now amended and re-issued their decision and removed reference to Mr X’s complaint being late. However, the Monitoring Officer’s decision not to investigate Mr X’s concerns remain the same as they do not consider his complaint demonstrates a code of conduct breach.
I understand Mr X may disagree. But I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer properly considered the relevant evidence and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated. The Monitoring Officer’s amended reason for not taking further action was also in line with the Council’s arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered any significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman