Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Graphical | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Other categories : : Other categories archive 2007-08 : : Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (05C16253)

Quality and efficiency

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Downloads

Site tools

Files with this symbol pdf icon are in .pdf format. To view these files you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It can be downloaded below free of charge. Click To Download

adobe acrobat reader

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (05C16253)

Leisure and culture                     Maladministration causing injustice

28 February 2008

Oldham Councillors who decided to close a village library to save £31,000 were not fully aware of the alternatives. The Ombudsman says that a local Community Association was working with the Council to provide volunteers to staff the library, but was then frustrated to find that the Council had no budget for the premises.

There was a failure to explain to Councillors what was included in the saving when they made their decision, and this led to the closure of the library for two months. The Ombudsman asks the Council to pay £750 compensation to the Association, and provide it with assistance in locating other sources of funds for the volunteer-run library.

‘Mr Granger’ (not his real name for legal reasons) complained about the Council’s decision to close a village library and its dealings with a Community Association that was willing to recruit volunteers to operate the service.

The Council approved the closure of the library to save £31,000 per year as part of a major exercise to reduce its overall spending by £6 million. The premises costs of the library were not mentioned in the reports submitted to an Overview & Scrutiny Commission, the Cabinet or the Council meeting that gave final approval. The only document that refers to what was covered by the £31,000 is a briefing note to the Lead Member that said “…the current budget reduction applied only to staffing costs…”

All the reports that refer to saving the library from closure also refer to three options to be explored: letting the whole building, selling it, and operating with volunteers.

The Community Association began to work with Council officers and, more than two months later, after the closure had been approved, discovered that the Council had no budget for the premises costs. Acting under delegated powers, officers agreed to fund the costs for one year only. The library was closed for two of those months because the Council did not provide the support it had promised to train the volunteers. The matter has not been considered again by Councillors.

The Ombudsman found maladministration in the way the Council decided not to fund premises costs as:

  • the reports submitted to Councillors did not make clear what was included in the saving;
  • and Councillors had not had the opportunity to decide whether they wished to save £31,000 and have no library service at all in the village, or save a slightly smaller amount and have a volunteer-run service.

This caused injustice to the Community Association as the village had no library service for two months, and its members had taken time and trouble in preparing to run the library only to find the project jeopardised by the unexpected difficulty of funding the premises costs.

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

  • pays the Association £250 for the frustration caused by the lack of clarity about premises costs being included in the saving;
  • pays the Association £500 to recognise that the library was closed for two months; and
  • provides advice and assistance to the Association in locating and applying for other sources of grant aid for the volunteer-run library service.

Date Published: 27/10/08