Making a complaint about a councillor

Preliminary tests

The monitoring officer will review every complaint received and take a decision as to whether it merits formal investigation. This decision will normally be taken within 10 working days of receipt of your complaint.

The complaint will be assessed by the monitoring officer, or in their absence the deputy monitoring officer, in consultation with the independent person, against the stage one legal threshold and, if applicable, the stage two initial assessment test.

Stage one – legal threshold

• Was the person complained of a member of the Council at the time of the alleged conduct?
• Was the person complained of acting in the capacity of a county councillor at the time of the alleged conduct?
• If the facts could be established as a matter of evidence, could the alleged conduct be capable of a breach of the code of conduct in force at the material time?

Complaints about councillors when they are acting in a private capacity cannot proceed and the monitoring officer will not progress complaints relating to dissatisfaction with the Council’s decisions, policies and priorities.

If the complaint fails one or more of the stage one legal threshold tests, no further action will be taken by the monitoring officer and the complaint will be rejected.

The complainant will be notified accordingly with reasons, normally within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint by the monitoring officer. There is no right of appeal against the monitoring officer’s decision.

Stage two – initial assessment

If the complaint satisfies the stage one legal threshold test, the monitoring officer will then apply the following initial assessment criteria test:

• The complaint is a ‘repeat complaint’, unless supported by new or further evidence substantiating or indicating that the complaint is exceptionally serious or significant.
• No or insufficient information or evidence to substantiate the complaint has been submitted by the complainant.
• The complaint is malicious, trivial, politically motivated or ‘tit-for-tat’ and the complaint doesn’t disclose sufficiently serious potential breaches of the code.
• The complainant is unreasonably persistent, malicious or vexatious.
• The alleged misconduct happened more than six months ago.
• The complaint is relatively minor and dealing with the complaint would have a disproportionate effect on both public money and officers’ and members’ time and it is more appropriate for the matter to be discussed with the group leader or chief whip (or both) in accordance with paragraph 16.
• The circumstances have changed so much that there would be little benefit arising from an investigation or other action.
• The complaint has been the subject of an investigation or other action and there is nothing more to be gained by further action being taken.
• The complaint is such that it is unlikely that an investigation will be able to come to a firm conclusion on the matter, for example, where there is no firm evidence on the matter.
• The complaint is about a deceased person.
• The complaint is about a person who is no longer a councillor.

If one or more of the stage two initial assessment test applies to the complaint, no further action will be taken by the monitoring officer and the complaint will be rejected.

The complainant will be notified accordingly with reasons, normally within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint by the monitoring officer. There is no right of appeal against the monitoring officer’s decision.

If the complaint identifies alleged criminal conduct or breach of other regulations by any person, the monitoring officer may also refer the matter to the police and other regulatory agencies. The monitoring officer has the ability to raise any such matter with the whips. 

If none of the criteria in the stage two initial assessment apply, the monitoring officer will go on to apply the public interest test.

Stage three – public interest test

Public interest is regarded as ‘something that is of serious concern and benefit to the public’. It has also been held that the public interest does not mean what is of interest to the public, but what is in the interest of the public.

The Council is of the view that it should not use its resources to investigate matters which are trivial or which have little or no impact upon the public.

It is important that the Council focuses on investigations where matters are serious and capable of undermining the relationship between councillors and the public they serve such as; corruption, bullying, damaging the Council’s public image, bringing the Council into disrepute, or the misuse of power in public office.

When applying the public interest test, the monitoring officer and independent person shall consider each of the following public interest factors set out below. These factors are not exhaustive, and not all may be relevant in every case.

The weight to be attached to each of these factors, and the factors identified, will also vary according to the facts and merits of each case:

• The seriousness of the breach, for example, has the subject member brought the Council seriously into disrepute? The more serious the breach the more likely investigation and referral for further hearing is required. Robust challenge is, however, part of a members role and a balanced approach therefore needs to be taken.
• Has the subject member deliberately sought personal gain for themself or another person? If there is evidence of this, it is likely that the complaint will be investigated and referred for further hearing.
• Are the circumstances of the alleged breach such that a subject member has misused a position of trust or authority and caused harm to a person? If there is evidence of this it is likely that the complaint will be investigated and referred for further hearing.
• Was the breach motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim’s ethnic or national origin, gender, disability, age, religion or belief, sexual orientation or gender identity? If a subject member’s conduct is believed to be motivated by any form of discrimination it is likely that the complaint will be investigated and referred for further hearing.
• Is there evidence of previous similar behaviour on the part of the member? If so and the matter complained about is serious enough it is likely that the complaint will be investigated and referred for further hearing;
• Is the alleged breach such that an investigation or referral to the Standards Committee is required to maintain public confidence in elected members? If so it is likely that the complaint will be investigated and referred for further hearing
• Is investigation or referral to the Standards Committee a proportionate response? Namely, would the cost of an investigation or hearing by the Standards Committee be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likely sanction?