The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a parish councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.
The complaint
Mr X complained about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with his complaint about the conduct of a parish councillor in not replying to him. This followed a parish council’s decision and related actions.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B).)
We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended.)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and Council.
I considered 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 parish council or the councillor complained about. Where a Monitoring Officer has made a decision 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. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns about the councillor not replying to him and the evidence available, and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated. The Council was not involved in the initial parish council decision and could not act to change this, nor can the Ombudsman.
I recognise Mr X found the parish council’s decision and actions to be distressing, and that he disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision, but the two are not directly linked. The Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide not to formally investigate Mr X’s complaint, but it could not achieve for Mr X what he would like in any event.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman