Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way a member of staff from the Council spoke to him. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice. It is also unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the way the manager of a council operated library spoke to him. Mr X had previously called the library desk about a member of public speaking on their telephone. Mr X says the manager of the library was rude and falsely accused him of complaining about other members of staff. Mr X says the manager of the library told him he was banned from the library – but changed his mind when Mr X threatened to complain. Mr X wants £600 in compensation for defamation of his character.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council has responded to complaints from Mr X. It said the manager of the library had been spoken to and he denied being aggressive toward Mr X. The manager said he had invited Mr X to speak to him at any time if there was a problem with the library. The Council confirmed it had not banned Mr X from using the library.
6. The Ombudsman does not investigate all the complaints we receive. We only look at those we consider the most serious. In deciding whether to investigate a complaint, we need to consider various tests. These include the likelihood of finding fault, what we can achieve for the person complaining, and the injustice caused by the alleged fault.
7. It is clear Mr X feels strongly about the way he was spoken to. But the manager of the library has denied being rude to Mr X. I was not present at the time, so I could never say with any certainty what happened. Without independent witnesses to verify what was said, I do not consider that an investigation by the Ombudsman could add anything to the Council’s response. There is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice to warrant our involvement.
8. Also, we do not award compensation, only small token payments where we identify administrative fault causing injustice. If Mr X feels the Council and its staff are guilty of defamation, then he could consider taking independent legal advice. Defamation is a matter for the courts, not the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice. It is also unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman