The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its complaints inquiry at the first stage of its process. This is because the Council followed its procedures and there is insufficient evidence of fault.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council did not look at her complaint about a councillor at all stages of its complaints process. Ms X says the councillor breached the Council’s code of conduct when posting on social media.
Ms X says the Council delayed in responding to her which caused her stress and frustration. Ms X wants the Council to progress her complaint to the next stage of its process.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’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) 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)) The Ombudsman does not offer a right of appeal against a Council’s decision on complaints about member conduct and will not investigate the issues that prompted the complaint about member conduct. However, we can consider if there was fault in the way the Monitoring Officer or Standards Committee considered the complaint.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X complained to the Council that one of its councillors had breached its code of conduct on a social media platform.
The Council applied its “Procedure for Dealing with Complaints” when reviewing the complaint. The Council responded to each of the complaints submitted and decided that it would end its investigation at the initial stage.
Ms X requested the Council review its decision. The Council reviewed the information available, and its decision remained the same.
The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision where there is not enough evidence of fault in how it was made. The Council followed its procedure and reached its decision. It set out its reasons for this. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the concerns, therefore we will not investigate this complaint.
Ms X said there was a delay in receiving a formal response. The Council’s policy says it will endeavour to respond to the complaint within 15 working days of acknowledging receipt of the complaint. The Council responded to the original complaint four months later. Therefore, there is evidence of delay. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Additionally, the Council’s apology is sufficient remedy to any injustice the delay caused.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman