It was alleged that a member of Newport City Council acted in a disrespectful and intimidatory manner towards a member of staff at tenanted accommodation on 2 separate occasions.
The Ombudsman’s Office started an investigation to consider paragraphs: • 4(b) (respect and consideration) • 4(c) (harassment and bullying) • 5(a) (confidential information) • 6(1)(a) (disrepute).
Information was obtained from the Council. The Complainant provided witness evidence.
With regard to both occasions complained about, the investigation found that it was not clear from the evidence whether the Member was acting as a councillor or private individual at the time of the events complained about. The Code usually only applies when a member of a council is performing functions as a councillor or seeking in some way to rely upon their status as a councillor. That said, paragraph 6(1)(a) applies whether a member is acting in a professional or personal capacity.
The investigation found that the Member’s account and that of the Complainant differed. However, the Complainant did not directly witness either of the matters complained about. The Complainant confirmed that nobody was present during either occasion other than the Member and the key witness. Whilst attempts were made to engage with the key witness in order to fully understand what had happened, and the impact of the interactions, we were unable to establish their direct account. As such, no further witnesses to events on either occasion, or further lines of enquiry, were available.
Given the conflicting accounts provided, and the lack of any direct, or otherwise, supporting evidence from the key witness that could corroborate the allegations, or contradict what the Member had said, it was not possible to reconcile the differences in the accounts provided in a way that would allow this Office to reach a balanced view of what took place.
It is, therefore, not possible to reach a determination on these allegations, even with further investigation, as to whether the Member’s conduct was suggestive of a breach of the Code.
For these reasons it was not proportionate or in the public interest to continue the investigation. However, should further witness evidence became available in the future, it may be in the public interest for the Ombudsman to consider the matter further. The Ombudsman recommended that the Member reflected on his behaviour and familiarised himself with his obligations under the Code.
Under Section 70 of the Local Government Act 2000, the Ombudsman decided that it was not in the public interest to continue the investigation. Therefore, the investigation was discontinued.