PSOW Individual Decisions

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Bridgend Town Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct. It was alleged that the Member sent correspondence to the Complainant which was disrespectful and amounted to bullying and harassment.  The Ombudsman determined that investigation was appropriate and that paragraphs 4(b) and 4(c) of the Code should be considered.  Information was obtained from the Council.  Witnesses, including the complainant, were interviewed and provided written submissions.  The Member was interviewed. The investigation found that the correspondence sent by the Member included comments that could be considered as offensive and upsetting and were disrespectful in nature.  In considering complaints which relate to the conduct of a councillor who is exercising their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Ombudsman must carefully consider whether any sanction which might ultimately be imposed on the member, would be a proportionate interference with those rights.  The Ombudsman must also consider the purpose of the ethical standards framework and whether it would be proportionate and in the public interest for any further action to be taken. The Ombudsman considered that the Member’s explanation for sending the correspondence, specifically that he was upset that he had received an invitation for the meeting and waited for some time for it to start only to then be asked to leave, was plausible.  The Member acknowledged that he wrote the letter in the “heat of the moment”, while emotions were high.  The Member reflected on his conduct and acknowledged that the letter was sent in the heat of the moment and that he should have taken time to consider the matter before sending such a letter.  The Member also offered further apologies and it is clear that he regrets the incident and feels he could have handled the matter differently. In view of the insight and rem

It was alleged that a Member of the Council failed to declare personal and prejudicial interests during a council meeting. The Ombudsman started an investigation to consider paragraphs 7(a), 10(2)(c), 11(1), 12(1) and 14(1) of the Code of Conduct (“the Code”).  Information was obtained from the Council.  The Complainant was interviewed. In determining whether it would be in the public interest to continue with the investigation, the Ombudsman considered the relevant factors including whether it was likely that if any breach of the Code were to be found whether any sanction is likely to be imposed.  As the Member had already been disqualified from being or becoming a member of the Council for a set period, even if a breach of the Code were to be found, no greater sanction than the disqualification already in place would likely be imposed on the member for a breach of this nature.  Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman considered that it would be a disproportionate use of resources to continue the investigation. Accordingly, under Section 70 of the Local Government Act 2000, the Ombudsman decided that it was not in the public interest to continue the investigation.  Therefore, the investigation was discontinued.

We received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Bridgend Town Council (“the Council”) breached the Code of Conduct for Local Authority Members (“the Code”).  It was alleged that the Member had bullied the Complainant, an employee of the Council, over a number of years, and had not treated the Complainant with courtesy and respect.  Following investigation, we considered the Member’s conduct was suggestive of breaches of the Code and we referred our investigation report to the President of the Adjudication Panel for Wales, for adjudication by a tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Member had failed to comply with a number of the duties in the Code.  It found the Member had failed to treat the Complainant with consideration and respect;  the Member had made vexatious, malicious or frivolous complaints about the Complainant; the Member had bullied/harassed the Complainant, and the Member had acted in a way which brought the Council into disrepute. The Tribunal decided to disqualify the Member from being a member of Bridgend Town Council for 21 months. The Case Tribunal’s decision is available here.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Former Member (“the Former Member”) of Bridgend Town Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”). The Complainant alleged that the Former Member, whilst out campaigning for local elections, spoke to a member of the public who said that he would be voting for another Councillor (the Complainant).  The Former Member was alleged to have responded by saying “Oh, the wife beater”. The evidence gathered during the investigation suggested that the Member breached a number of provisions in the Council’s Code of Conduct for elected members. The Ombudsman considered whether the complaint related to the Former Member’s role on the Council and whether the Code applied at all times and was satisfied that the Code was engaged in full.  The member of the public confirmed that he was aware of the Former Member’s status as a member of the Council, and given that she was campaigning for the elections, she would have been engaged in political activity at the time.  The Ombudsman was therefore persuaded that the Former Member was acting in her capacity as Member at the time the alleged comment was made. The Ombudsman considered, on the balance of probabilities, that the Former Member did refer to the Complainant as a “wife beater” and that this was a serious allegation to make against somebody without evidence to support it.  In a small community, making such a statement had the potential to cause significant reputational damage that can become difficult to disassociate with.  In making such a statement, there would have been little regard as to the impact this could have on the Complainant and those close to him.  The Ombudsman considered that, in doing so, the Former Member failed to show necessary respect and consideration towards the Complainant and was therefore of the view that this action is suggestive of a breach of paragraph 4(b) of the Code. Case law on the application of the Code for members in Wales has est

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Bridgend Town Council (“the Council”) breached the Code of Conduct. It was alleged that the Member had: failed to declare a personal and prejudicial interest in a Council meeting; had taken part in a discussion in the Council meeting when he should not have done given his interests; and that by taking part in the discussion, he had tried to influence a decision on the matter discussed to gain an advantage for his wife. Our finding, under section 69 of the Local Government Act 2000, was that our report on our investigation be referred to the Monitoring Officer of Bridgend County Borough Council for consideration by its Standards Committee. The Standards Committee found that the Member had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct. Its sanction was to suspend the Member from the Relevant Authority, as set out in the Local Government Act 2000, for 6 months. The Standards Committee decision is available here . The decision was subject to appeal by the Member. Following the appeal the Standards Committee decided to uphold the original 6 months suspension.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Bridgend Town Council (“the Council”) posted comments on social media that alleged impropriety on the part of members of the Council. The Ombudsman’s investigation considered whether the Member’s conduct may have breached paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct.  Information was obtained from the Council, including minutes of relevant Council meetings.  The complainant provided screenshots of comments posted by the Member.  Witnesses, including the complainant, were interviewed.  The Member was interviewed. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Member posted comments on social media which alleged that members of the Council may have acted improperly in awarding a contract.  The comments were visible to members of the public.  The Ombudsman found that the comments were serious and suggested impropriety and had the potential to affect the Council’s reputation and the public’s confidence in local democracy.  As a result, the Ombudsman found that the Member’s conduct could reasonably be regarded as bringing the Council into disrepute and was suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code. In considering whether further action was required in the public interest, the Ombudsman took into account the Member’s explanation for his comments in that he said he had genuine concerns about how the contract had been awarded as the Council had gone against the advice of its Clerk.  The Ombudsman noted that the minutes of the Council meeting, in which the relevant contract was awarded, documented that the Council’s decision was out of step with the explicit advice given by the Clerk.  The Ombudsman found that the Member’s explanation about his concerns appeared to have been founded on what he believed at the time and therefore fell within the bounds of freedom of expression.  The Member did not report the concerns he had but explained he did not know how to do so.  The Ombudsman found that the Member

It was alleged that a Councillor (“the Member”) disclosed confidential information on Facebook when she shared information about a discussion which took place in a private council session and that this may amount to breach of the Code of Conduct. The investigation considered the following paragraphs of the Code of Conduct: 5(a)Members must not – disclose confidential information or information which should reasonably be regarded as being of a confidential nature, without the express consent of a person authorised to give such consent, or unless required by law to do so. 6(1)(a) Members must not – conduct [themselves] in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing [their] office or authority into disrepute. 7(a) Members must not – in [their] official capacity or otherwise, use or attempt to use [their] position improperly to confer on or secure for [themselves], or any other person, an advantage or create or avoid for [themselves], or any other person, a disadvantage. During the course of the investigation, information from the Community Council was considered, including meeting minutes.  Witnesses were also interviewed. The investigation found that the Member posted a comment on her personal Facebook account.  The content of the comments related to Council matters and her role within the Council.  The Ombudsman considered that the Member gave the impression she was relying on her status as a member and therefore that the Code of Conduct was fully engaged in relation to the comment. The Ombudsman found that the meeting discussions and the minutes of the meeting were confidential and sharing that information could be suggestive of a breach of paragraph 5(a) of the Code of Conduct.  However, the Ombudsman found that during the full Council meeting that took place, some information was shared during the public element of the meeting and was documented in the minutes of the meeting which were shared publicly.  Therefore, the Ombudsman did not consider that th