The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained a councillor had breached the Elected Member Code of Conduct. Mrs X said the councillor had posted an unacceptable image on social media.
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)) We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Local Authorities have a duty to designate a Monitoring Officer. The Monitoring Officer must ensure the authority, its officers, and members, maintain the highest standards of conduct.
Each council has different rules for dealing with complaints about alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct. But the Monitoring Officer will normally consider the complaint to decide if the jurisdictional tests and local assessment criteria are met, and if further action is needed. If the Monitoring Officer decides not to take further action, they will contact the complainant and give reasons for their decision.
Where a decision has been made in line with the correct procedure, taking account the relevant evidence, we 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.
In their final response to Mrs X the Monitoring Officer said they had consulted with the Council’s Independent Person. The Monitoring Officer had decided the complaint did not meet the threshold for Investigation. But they had spoken to the councillor who had removed the post. They had reminded them of their responsibility as an elected member when using social media.
I understand Mrs X is unhappy with the Monitoring Officer’s response. But they considered Mrs X’s complaint in line with the Council’s policy and explained their decision. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman