The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a councillor because they were not acting on behalf of the Council in an administrative function. We will not investigate the Council’s decision not to investigate the councillor’s conduct. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the decision was made.
The complaint.
Mr X says he was unhappy with how a councillor communicated with him during conversations on social media. Mr X complained to the Council and after it looked at Mr X’s complaint, it decided not to investigate. Mr X says this is censorship and has deprived him of his right to free speech.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of councillors not acting in an administrative function of a council (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended).
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) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X had several text-based conversations on social media with a councillor and was unhappy with the councillor’s responses. In one conversation, Mr X says the councillor’s conduct was bullying and vindictive.
The law only allows us to investigate the administrative actions of the Council. The councillor was not carrying out an administrative function of the Council when he engaged with Mr X on social media. Therefore, we cannot investigate the actions of the councillor.
The Council looked at Mr X’s complaint and decided not to investigate it. The Council explained to Mr X that Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights allowed councillors freedom of expression. The Council asked Mr X to provide more information about his bullying complaint to allow it to investigate this matter.
The Council’s constitution allows for a senior council officer to assess complaints against a councillor and decide whether to investigate. The Council has considered Mr X’s complaint and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it made the decision not to investigate further. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
Mr X is free to provide further information to the Council about the bullying complaint and come back to us after the Council has considered this if he remains unhappy.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a councillor because they were not acting on behalf of the Council in an administrative function. We will not investigate the Council’s decision not to investigate the councillor’s conduct. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the decision was made.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman