The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a code of conduct complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his complaint about the conduct of town councillors. Mr X says there were delays and the Monitoring Officer did not properly consider his concerns.
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, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Local Authorities have a duty to designate a Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure that the authority, its officers and members maintain the highest standards of conduct. Each council has different rules for dealing with complaints about code of conduct breaches.
The Ombudsman does not provide an appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decisions. We are also unable to investigate or comment on the actions of the town council or the councillors complained about. We can consider the Council’s administration of a code of conduct complaint. However, where a decision has been made in line with the correct procedure, taking account of the relevant evidence, the Ombudsman 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 as the code of conduct had not been breached. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns and the evidence available and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated. The Monitoring Officer also consulted the Independent Person.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their judgement to decide a formal investigation was not needed. As the Monitoring Officer properly considered Mr X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, it is unlikely I could find fault.
Mr X says there were long delays before the Council responded to his complaint. But it has apologised which I consider a suitable remedy in the circumstances, and it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve any more for Mr X in this regard.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman