The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s investigation into concerns she raised about the actions of two other councillors and a parish council clerk. There was no fault by the Council.
The complaint
Mrs X complained about the Council’s investigation into concerns she raised about the actions of two other councillors and a parish council clerk.
Mrs X is unhappy the Council only asked for an apology and did not take stronger action.
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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation I have considered the following: The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
The Council’s Code of Conduct for Councillors.
The Council’s Councillor complaints procedure.
Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Under section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, councils must designate an officer as Monitoring Officer (MO) to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of council decision making. The MO has a specific duty to ensure the council, its officers, and its members maintain the highest standards of conduct.
As part of the Council’s relevant Code of Conduct, councillors must: Act with integrity and honesty Act lawfully Treat all persons fairly and with respect Lead by example and act in a way that secures public confidence Complaints about councillor conduct are considered by the MO. The MO will decide, along with the Independent Person (IP), whether the complaint merits investigation.
The MO has three options when considering complaints: Refer for investigation.
Resolve the complaint informally with other action.
Take no further action.
The MO may speak to the complainant or the member who is subject of the complaint if they need more information.
Where possible, the MO will try to resolve the complaint informally. Informal resolution may include asking the member to accept their conduct was unacceptable and apologise.
The MO may call the police if a complaint involves possible criminal conduct.
If the MO considers a complaint needs formal investigation, they will appoint an Investigating Officer (IO).
After considering the IO’s report, the MO may refer the complaint for a hearing before the sub-committee of the Standards Committee or seek a local resolution with the agreement of the IP.
What happened Mrs X contacted the Council’s MO in July 2021 alleging a parish council clerk (the clerk), a Councillor (Cllr A), and Cllr A’s wife, forged parish council documents.
Miss X said they drew up fictitious minutes for a meeting in order to allow the clerk access to the parish council’s bank account.
The MO made enquiries before interviewing people involved or with knowledge of the allegations. This included Cllr A.
Cllr A admitted signing false minutes. The bank had put a stop on the parish council’s account, so this was purely to get the account open again so the parish council could pay staff salaries.
Cllr A’s version of events was supported by other councillors and staff the MO interviewed.
The MO also contacted the police. However, the police dropped its investigation because there was not enough evidence of criminal intent.
The MO suggested to the Council’s IP that the Council should nevertheless investigate, due to the seriousness of the allegations. The IP agreed.
An IO was appointed. After reviewing the evidence, the IO considered the most suitable action was to ask Cllr A to apologise. The IP agreed with this approach.
The Council then wrote to Mrs X and Cllr A with the outcome of its investigation. The Council said it was satisfied there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct and Cllr A was invited to apologise at the next parish council meeting.
My investigation In response to my enquiries, the Council told me there was no fraud committed by the councillors or clerk and no malicious motives.
The MO therefore considered an apology was appropriate.
The Council said this was justified because there was no criminal intent, and the actual intent was to ensure swift payment of wages to staff.
The IO considered, whilst the allegations were serious, the mitigation appeared legitimate. The IO considered the act was done in good faith and appeared to be more a case of poor judgement.
Analysis I am satisfied the Council correctly investigated Mrs X’s complaint in line with its procedure and I have not seen evidence of fault.
The MO interviewed Cllr A, along with other relevant members of the parish council, contacted the police, and then assigned an IO to consider the complaint further.
Between the IO and the IP, it was agreed an apology was a suitable outcome and the Council has provided reasons for the decision. That is a merits decision, based on the evidence, and is not something the Ombudsman can decide.
The Council’s procedure explicitly states the MO will try to resolve complaints informally, including by way of apology. The local resolution agreed in this case accords with that aim.
The Council’s procedure does not detail specific situations where a Standards Committee referral would be suitable. In deciding not to make a referral, I found the Council considered Cllr A’s motives and the fact he accepted fault. The Council also took account of the views of the police, who decided to take no action.
I have not seen evidence the Council failed to consider any relevant evidence, or that it considered any irrelevant matters. I therefore cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman