Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that he and his family were the victims of racial discrimination when they attended a library. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council and would not achieve any more for Mr B.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complains he and his wife were racially discriminated against when they returned library books. Mr B wants to know how many other complaints have been raised against the members of staff involved and for them to attend relevant training. He also wants the matter recorded as a racial discrimination incident.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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
• 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr B, which includes his complaint to the Council and the Council’s responses. I sent a draft decision to Mr B and considered the comments he made in reply before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B has explained he and his family visited a library in November 2019. They returned books and were sitting in the children’s area when a member of the library staff approached his wife about a book they had just returned. Mr B says the member of staff was ‘holding the book up and waving it around’, and ‘talking on the verge of yelling’. Mr B says the member of staff accused them of damaging the book and would not have spoken to them this way if they were ‘Caucasian’.
6. The Council has investigated Mr B’s complaint. It spoke to the member of staff and their manager, viewed CCTV footage (which had no sound) and considered the complaint Mr B had raised. The Council explained there was no evidence to warrant taking any further action. The Council has also explained that staff at the library have to discuss replacing books that are damaged and has confirmed to Mr B that the members of staff he complains about have not had any previous complaints raised against them.
7. While Mr B remains dissatisfied, the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. There are two conflicting versions of the incident in the library. The Ombudsman could not reach any view on this because he was not a party to the discussion and there is no recording of it. And the Council has investigated Mr B’s complaint by considering the information he provided, interviewing the relevant members of staff and viewing the available CCTV recording in the library.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council or achieve any more for Mr B.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman