Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Fife Council > LA/Fi/965

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/Fi/965 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Peter Grant of Fife Council

1. Complaint number LA/Fi/965 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Peter Grant (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the key principle of Duty in paragraph 2.1.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”) alleged that she had been attempting, unsuccessfully, to make an appointment with the respondent and had been waiting for over a year for him to obtain information from the Council regarding damage which she alleged had been caused to her home as a result of repairs which the Council arranged to have carried out to the roof of her house.

4. The issue at the core of the complaint was the complainant’s dissatisfaction with what she perceived to be a delay or unwillingness on the part of the Council to acknowledge and put right the alleged damage to her home and with the respondent’s inability (in her view) to expedite the resolution of her difficulties. The respondent became involved when the complainant approached him in his capacity as a ward councillor.

5. The complainant considered that the respondent had breached the key principle of Duty in paragraph 2.1 of the Code, in particular, the duty to be accessible, but she did not link this to any of the specific rules of conduct in sections 3 to 7 of the Code. While a failure to comply with a key principle alone would not normally constitute a breach of the Code, I investigated the complainant’s allegations to assess whether they were well founded.

6. The documents provided by the complainant showed that she first contacted the respondent, by email, on 18 May 2008. There followed an exchange of emails between them, which led to a meeting on 5 June 2009. On 9 June 2009 the respondent advised the complainant by email that he had asked the Head of Housing to arrange for him (the respondent) to get copies of contracts together with other documents and information relating to the work carried out on her home, but indicated that he might not be able to share some of the information with her as it may be commercially confidential. In an email on 31 July 2009 the respondent indicated that the Head of Housing had undertaken to get him all of the information which he had requested and that he (the respondent) would arrange for the complainant to get copies of anything that was not covered by commercial confidentiality.

7. The next email from the complainant to the respondent was on 13 February 2010 when she indicated that she was still in dispute with the Council and requested a meeting with him. This email received an automated “out of office” response (on the same date) as did a further similar email from the complainant on 20 February 2010. The respondent met with the complainant on 22 March 2010 after she had formally complained to the Chief Investigating Officer.

8. From my examination of the dates of his email responses, I considered that the respondent had replied promptly to the complainant. Also, from the content of his responses and from the information which he provided to the Investigating Officer, I considered that the respondent had attempted to get the Council to provide the complainant with the information which she had requested relating to the work done to her house and to secure resolution of her difficulties with the Council.

9. I emphasised that it was not the purpose of the investigation to assess or comment upon the alleged damage to the complainant’s home or the adequacy of the manner in which the Council had dealt with her concerns. It was the complainant’s view that the respondent did not adequately follow up matters with the Council to ensure that it had done sufficient to address her problems. However, I considered that it was reasonable for the respondent, having raised the complainant’s concerns with the Housing Department (and having being satisfied that they were being looked into), to expect that, thereafter, the Department would deal directly with the complainant to address her concerns.

10. Having regard to all of the information. I considered that the respondent acted reasonably in responding to the complainant’s requests for meetings with him and, more generally, in attempting to assist her. I also considered that he acted reasonably in attempting to get the Housing Department to provide her with information and to deal with her difficulties and that, having done so, it was the Housing Department’s responsibility thereafter to resolve any outstanding problems which the complainant was experiencing Accordingly, I found that the respondent had not acted in an inaccessible manner and that he had not breached the key principle of Duty.

11. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Peter Grant had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

17 June 2010