Back to index

1. Section 28 of the Localism Act 2011 provides that a relevant authority must have in place arrangements under which allegations can be investigated, and arrangements under which decisions on allegations can be made. This document sets out those arrangements. The Local Government Association’s Guidance on Member Model Code of Conduct Complaints Handling (21 September 2021) has been referred to in drafting this document. If there is any ambiguity, lack of clarity or gaps in this document, that Guidance may be referred to in order to assist comprehension and to provide more detailed guidance on how to approach any of the steps described in this document. For the avoidance of doubt, reference in this procedure to the “authority” means Lancashire Combined Fire Authority and does not refer to the member’s home authority.

2. There are no specific timescales in this document for any step in the process. This is because of the number of variables that may be encountered which could make timescales impossible to meet. Equally, allowing too long a period of time when matters could be progressed more quickly is to be avoided. It is however recognised that in almost every case, dealing with complaints as promptly as possible will likely be in the best interests of all involved and the overarching aim should be to deal with all steps under this process as efficiently and swiftly as possible without compromising fairness; impartiality; transparency and thoroughness.

3. The Localism Act further provides that arrangements put in place by a relevant authority to investigate and decide upon allegations must include provision for the appointment by the authority of at least one Independent Person. Their views must be sought, and taken into account by the authority before it makes its decision on an allegation that it has decided to investigate. Details of Lancashire Combined Fire Authority’s Independent Persons can be found on Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service’s website.

4. The views of the Independent Person may also be sought: (i) by the authority in relation to an allegation in any circumstances, even if it has not yet decided to investigate; or (ii) by a member, or co-opted member, of the authority if that person's behaviour is the subject of an allegation. The views of the Independent Person can therefore be sought by the authority or the member complained of at any stage in this procedure.

5. Any complaint received must be put into writing (if not already – section 28(9) Localism Act) and contain sufficient detail for the matter to be looked into along with contact details of the complainant. This should be sent to the Monitoring Officer who will acknowledge receipt. If the Monitoring Officer identifies a conflict of interest which prevents them from involvement in an investigation, either the Deputy Monitoring Officer or a Monitoring Officer from another authority will be engaged to undertake the role normally performed by the Monitoring Officer.

6. The Monitoring Officer will normally disclose details of the complaint to the member who the complaint is about at this stage, as well as the identity of the complainant. There is discretion however to not disclose some or all of this detail in exceptional circumstances, for example if doing so may prejudice the investigation; potentially lead to intimidation of the complainant or witnesses; lead to the compromise or destruction of evidence; or some other good reason.

7. The Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Independent Person will make an initial assessment of the written complaint and determine whether to:

7.1 Take no action.

7.2 Arrange for the matter to be dealt with informally if possible.

7.3 Refer the matter for formal investigation.

7.4 They may also refer the matter to the police or other regulatory agency (for example for failing to disclose a disclosable pecuniary interest) but this will be in addition to one of the actions above.

8. In assessing the complaint at this stage, the Monitoring Officer will apply the ‘public interest’ test when filtering complaints:

8.1 Can the complaint be investigated: Is the person a member of the authority? Is the conduct covered by the Code? When did the alleged conduct occur?

8.2 Should the complaint be investigated: Is there potentially evidence to support the complaint? Is it obviously vexatious, petty or malicious? (A vexatious complaint is one which is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustifiable level of distress, disruption or irritation. A petty complaint is one that at its highest is trivial and of minimal importance. A malicious complaint is one that appears untrue and whose main purpose is to cause harm). Is the behaviour complained of historic, and if so what is the reason for any delay? Is this a matter that has already been investigated or dealt with in some other way? Would an investigation be proportionate and in the public interest?

9. Where the initial assessment decision is to take no action, this will be communicated to the complainant and the member in writing along with a rationale for the decision. This decision is final and there is no appeal against this.

10. If the Monitoring Officer believes that the matter can be reasonably resolved without the need for a hearing (local resolution), they will consult the Independent Person, the complainant and the member and seek to agree a fair resolution, for example the member accepting that their conduct was unacceptable and offering an apology, or agreeing to go on training.

11. If either one or both of the complainant and the member do not agree the proposed local resolution, this will be taken into consideration by the Monitoring Officer and Independent Person but will not be in itself the sole determinant of whether or not this would be the appropriate method of resolution. The Monitoring Officer can decide that this will be the outcome despite their disagreement. Clearly if the proposal would involve a positive action by the member and they refuse to carry this out, this would be a strong factor indicating local resolution is unworkable.

12. If local resolution does take place, the Monitoring Officer will report the matter to the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee but will take no further action. If the Monitoring Officer does not believe that local resolution appropriate, or if it is attempted but for some reason not successful, they will progress the matter to a hearing. It should be noted that if the matter is dealt with by local resolution, there will have been no finding of fact, although the member may have admitted some or all of the conduct complained of.

13. Where the Monitoring Officer decides that the complaint requires a formal investigation a suitable impartial investigator will be appointed by the Monitoring Officer.

14. The investigator will produce a written report which should be proportionate to the nature of the complaint but should incorporate the following:

14.1 Executive Summary – an outline of the allegation, who made it, the relevant provisions of the Code and whether there has been a breach.

14.2 The member’s official details – a brief outline of when the member was elected, term of office, details of committees served on and any relevant training.

14.3 Summary of facts and evidence gathered, highlighting facts which are in dispute and setting out the investigator’s conclusions based on the balance of probabilities.

14.4 Findings as to whether there has been a failure to comply with the Code on the balance of probabilities. Dealing with each allegation in turn and outlining whether the investigator considers there has been a breach and any aggravating or mitigating facts.

14.5 Schedule – a list of witnesses interviewed and copies of relevant documents.

15. A copy of the report will be sent first to the Monitoring Officer who will then circulate it to the member and complainant to check for factual accuracy. Both will have the opportunity to make written submissions at this stage, but these are limited to correcting factual inaccuracies or drawing attention to further relevant evidence that has not been considered. The Monitoring Officer and the Independent Person can also at this stage make comment to the investigator if they feel any parts of the report may need amendment for any reason, or if further investigation is needed. If a third party is named and criticised in the report, consideration should be given to allowing them to make comment on any parts that concern them. Any such submissions or comments will be fed back to the investigator who will make such further investigations as appropriate and make any amendments to the report before submitting a final draft to the Monitoring Officer.

16. On receipt of the final draft of the report, the Monitoring Officer can:

16.1 decide to take no further action;

16.2 seek to resolve the matter informally; or

16.3 refer the matter to a hearing.

In doing so the Monitoring Officer must consult with the relevant Independent Person.

17. Where the investigator concludes that there is no evidence of a failure to comply with the Code, the Monitoring Officer will review the report in consultation with the Independent Person. If the Monitoring Officer is satisfied with the investigator’s conclusion, they will write to the complainant and to the member, enclosing a copy of the final report and telling them that no further action will be taken.

18. Where the investigator concludes that there is evidence of a failure to comply with the Code, the Monitoring Officer will review the report in consultation with the Independent Person and will either send the matter for hearing before the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee (either at its next scheduled meeting or at a meeting set up specially for this purpose) or, after consulting the Independent Person, seek local resolution.

19. If proceeding to a hearing, the Monitoring Officer will ensure that all relevant papers are before the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee which will conduct a hearing before deciding whether the member has failed to comply with the Code and, if so, what action if any to take. This hearing will be chaired by an Independent Person sitting on the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee and not its usual Chair. The Monitoring Officer will advise this committee to ensure that the process is fair and in accordance with the law and this procedure (unless there is a conflict of interest in which case with the Deputy Monitoring Officer or a Monitoring Officer from another authority will perform this role).

20. The Monitoring Officer and the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee Independent Person may meet before the hearing in order to discuss arrangements as to how the hearing will be conducted and to issue any necessary instructions to relevant people in advance of the hearing. If the member wishes to have representation at the hearing, the Monitoring Officer should be advised as soon as possible so that this can be considered and factored in.

21. The Audit, Risk and Governance Committee will consider the complaint made about the member afresh, having regard to the investigator’s findings and all relevant information presented to the hearing by the complainant and the member.

22. The Independent Person must be consulted and their views taken into account before any decision is made on an allegation which has been investigated. The Independent Person will ordinarily be present at the hearing to present their views in person, but this is not vital if it would serve no useful purpose or is otherwise not feasible and the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee are content that their views can be fully and adequately put before them in some other way.

23. Meetings of the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee when conducting this hearing will be subject to the normal rules for publication of agendas and access to information.

24. The Audit, Risk and Governance Committee will conduct the hearing in accordance with the rules of natural justice and make a decision on the balance of probabilities, but the format and procedure of the hearing will be at the discretion of the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee Independent Person in consultation with the Monitoring Officer. The Audit, Risk and Governance Committee will announce its decision and any sanction at the end of the hearing.

25. The sanctions the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee can impose, it if finds a breach of the Code are:

25.1 Reprimand the member in writing by the Chair of the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee.

25.2 Publishing the findings in respect of the member’s conduct.

25.3 Report its findings to the Authority for information.

25.4 Recommend to the member’s group spokesperson (or in the case of ungrouped member, recommend to the Authority) that the member be removed from any or all committees or sub-committees of the Authority or from a particular role within the Authority (for example member champion), along with the consequent loss of allowance.

25.5 Instruct the Monitoring Officer to arrange training for the member.

25.6 Recommend to the Authority that the member be removed from all outside appointments to which they have been appointed or nominated by the Authority.

25.7 Withdraw facilities provided to the member by the Authority, such as computer, email and internet access.

25.8 Exclude the member from the Authority’s offices or other premises, with the exception of meeting rooms as necessary for attending formal meetings.

25.9 The Audit, Risk and Governance Committee has no power to suspend or disqualify the member from the Authority.

26. As soon as practicable after the hearing, the Monitoring Officer will prepare a formal decision notice in consultation with the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee Independent Person and send a copy to the complainant and the member, who will be given the opportunity to correct any inaccuracies prior to publication.

27. The decision notice will be available for public inspection (if so ordered by the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee) and posted on the Authority’s website. It will be reported to the next meeting of the full Authority.

28. There is a right of appeal from the decision of the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee by both the complainant and the member to the Appeals Committee. The Appeals Committee will follow a similar procedure to the above in relation to the hearing.

29. A matter that has already been complained of and dealt with under this procedure shall not be brought again unless there is sufficient new evidence or other substantial reason (such as a defect in process or other serious issue) that in all the circumstances makes it just and proper that this should happen.

Member complaints procedure aide memoire

1. Complaint in writing sent to the Monitoring Officer.

2. Monitoring Officer and Independent Person jointly make an initial assessment of the case.

3. After initial assessment there may be no further action; case dealt with informally; or case referred for further, formal investigation.

4. If the case proceeds to a formal investigation, the Monitoring Officer will appoint an impartial investigator who will prepare a report.

5. Upon receipt of the report, the Monitoring Officer jointly with the Independent Person decide whether to take no further action; deal with the case informally; or refer the case to a formal hearing.

6. The formal hearing is heard by the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee, chaired by its Independent Person.

7. If the matter is found proven by the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee, it can impose the sanctions set out in paragraph 25 of this procedure.

8. An Appeal will be heard by the Appeals Committee.

Back to index