Summary: Mr C complains about how the Council’s Library Service dealt with his reports of discrimination, and that it warned him he could be banned from using its services. However, there is no evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with these matters.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about issues relating to the Council’s Library Services. Mr C says that:
• Library staff failed to contact him to discuss his reports of discrimination.
• He was unfairly told he may be banned from the library, and subsequently received a ban.
• The Council have failed to respond appropriately to his freedom of information request.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Mr C’s complaint about his library ban and that staff from Library Services failed to contact him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and information received from Mr C; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• spoke with Mr C’s about his complaint.
7. I also sent a draft copy of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr C complained to the Council that he had been fined for the late return on books. Mr C said that he had seen others return books back late but did not receive fines. Mr C said he felt that he may be being discriminated against because he is autistic and male.
9. In its responses to his complaint, the Council told Mr C that he had witnessed someone returning late children’s books, and that it had a policy not to fine people in these circumstances as it wanted to encourage children reading. The Council also said that its staff could show discretion when deciding whether to issue fines.
10. The Council said that it found no evidence that Mr C had been discriminated against, but said it would arrange for someone from Library Services to contact him to discuss its concerns.
11. Upon contacting the Council, it told the Ombudsman that it accepted that a member of Library Services had not contact Mr C. However, it said that the Head of Library Services and the Community Network Manager had been in regular contact with Mr C in writing and via the telephone.

Library ban

12. Mr C further complained about how the Council responded after an incident where he had been disturbed by a group of people who were having a conversation in the library.
13. Mr C said he had a discussion with a member of the group and was subsequently challenged by a member of staff about his behaviour. Mr C said that the member of staff told him he could be banned if a similar incident occurred.
14. In its response to Mr C’s complaint, the Council said that it had spoken to Mr C about the incident as well as staff at the library and members of the public that witnessed the incident.
15. The Council acknowledged that Mr C was autistic and had allowed a certain level of behaviour, but it could not allow aggression or intimidation in its libraries. Mr C was told that this was one of several similar incidents and that further incidents would not be tolerated.
16. Upon contacting the Council, it told the Ombudsman there had been a further incident where Mr C was abusive, inappropriate and aggressive towards a member of the public. As a result, Mr C had been banned from using the Library for 6 months. The Council provided the Ombudsman with a copy of a letter to Mr C informing him of the ban.
17. Mr C disputes the Council’s version of events and says that, while the conversation had got heated, he was not abusive and merely disagreed with someone.
18. Mr C said that before the Council made its decision to ban him it had only spoken to library staff and not a Police Officer who was in the library at the time.
19. The Council has a document on its website called ‘Bolton Council Byelaws: Public Libraries and Museums’. It says at paragraph 13 “no person shall behave in a disorderly manner in the library, or use violent or abusive or obscene language”. Paragraph 25 says “any person who, within the view of the library officer, contravenes any of the foregone Byelaws may be excluded or removed from the library”.

Analysis

Report of discrimination

20. Mr C believes his report of discrimination was not taken seriously by the Council and that he did not receive a call from anyone from Library Services.
21. Having considered the Council’s complaint response I am satisfied that it considered Mr C’s claims of discrimination concluded that no discrimination had taken place and properly justified this decision.
22. The Council did however say that someone from Library Services would contact Mr C which it didn’t do. However, I will not make a formal finding of fault about this matter.
23. This is because the Council has shown that regular communications have taken place with Mr C about this matter. Furthermore, I consider that the complaint response adequately responded to Mr C’s concerns. I therefore conclude that Mr C has not suffered an injustice.

Library Ban

24. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide if Mr C should have been banned from the Library. However, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision taken by the Council where it has been taken without fault.
25. The Council investigated and considered Mr C’s complaint fully, speaking to all parties involved in the process. It did not uphold his complaint and clearly explained that future similar incidents would not be tolerated.
26. When a further incident occurred, it banned Mr C for a determinate period. This was done in accordance with its byelaws, and I find no evidence of fault in how it made this decision.
27. I acknowledge that Mr C disputes his behaviour was abusive and aggressive. However, this is how it was perceived by others.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with this matter.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

29. I did not investigate Mr C’s complaint that the Council failed to respond to his freedom of information request. This is a matter for the Information Commissioners Office.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman