Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of library event requests from self‑published authors, the possible exclusion of black, Asian and minority ethnic artists from library events, or the alleged removal of the complainant from a mailing list. Parts of the complaint have been resolved, there is insufficient evidence of fault in respect of other parts of the complaint, and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is better placed to consider the alleged discrimination.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms B, says:
• There were procedural irregularities in the consideration of her complaint about the Council failing to prepare for a book launch she had arranged at a library. In particular, the key people involved were not questioned or held to account;
• The Council’s policy of not hosting library events for self-published authors is discriminatory, particularly against women and black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) people. Ms B is also concerned the Council will refuse any future event requests she makes because of her complaint about the library service;
• A limited number of BAME artists attend the library events she has been invited to, so she wonders if the Council is unfairly applying selection criteria;
• She has not recently received any emails about library events for poets/writers, so is concerned she may have been removed from the mailing list.

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. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (for example, we cannot recommend disciplinary action against staff), or
• there is another body better placed to consider the complaint, or
• The Council has already taken, or proposed to take, satisfactory action to resolve the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 24A(7), 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

3. 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. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we have decided not to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered:
• Ms B’s complaint to the Ombudsman;
• The Council’s Stage 1 and 2 complaint responses;
• Email correspondence between Ms B and the Council, from October 2018 to July 2019;
• Information from the Council about its stock selection criteria, how it considers event requests (including a copy of the event proposal form), and whether Ms B is still on the poets mailing list;
• Ms B’s comments on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

Ms B’s book event

6. Ms B had arranged a book launch event at a library. But when she attended, she says no-one was aware of it, no marketing had been done, and no manager was available to discuss the situation.
7. In response to Ms B’s subsequent complaint, the Council apologised and paid her £100 for the loss of potential book sales. I consider this was a satisfactory way to remedy any injustice arising from the incident that Ms B was complaining about. With reference to paragraph 4 above, as I am satisfied the substantive issue has been addressed, it would not be a good use of public resources for the Ombudsman to consider the alleged faults in the complaints process in isolation.

The Council’s policy on library events

8. The Council has explained that the library events it agrees to host are generally related to the items it holds in its stock. Currently, it has chosen not to stock self‑published authors. So, whilst each event request will be assessed on its merits, as the Council is not currently purchasing self-published material, it says it is unlikely self-published authors will be offered events at the present time. As the stock supply decisions are reviewed yearly, the Council’s position may change in the future. With regard to allowing Ms B’s book launch, the Council had made an exception because she had supported and taken part in other poetry events held by the library service.
9. It is for the Council to decide whether to stock self‑published authors in its libraries, and it is entitled to take this factor into account, as well as any other exceptional circumstances, when it decides whether to approve an event request. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the Council’s decisions on event requests, unless there is evidence of administrative fault in the way they are made. I see no evidence of administrative fault in the way the Council has said it will consider event requests. In the future, if Ms B thinks the Council has failed to properly consider any event requests she makes, then she may submit a new complaint. The Ombudsman cannot investigate or remedy possible future injustice because the law does not allow us to consider something that has not yet happened.
10. And if Ms B believes the Council’s event request policy, and/or its event invitation policy, is discriminatory or contrary to the Equality Act 2010, then I consider the Equalities and Human Rights Commission would be better placed to consider such matters.

The Council’s mailing list

11. Finally, the Council has confirmed to me that Ms B has not been removed from its poets mailing list. The last time an email was sent was in September 2018, asking the recipients if they would like to be involved in a library poetry event, and Ms B subsequently took part. That event was not repeated this year, nor has the Council programmed any other events where the poets mailing list would be used. It says that if Ms B wants to be made aware of other library events and activities, she can subscribe to the Bradford Library Service Newsletter. I therefore see no evidence of fault with regard to the Council’s use of its mailing list.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint for the reasons detailed in paragraphs 6 to 11 above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman