Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the complainant was banned from the Council’s libraries in retaliation for him raising concerns about the library service. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, says he was banned from the Council’s libraries for 6 months in retaliation for a complaint he had made about the quality of service he received at a library.
2. Mr B says that whilst he no longer wishes to use the Council’s libraries, his integrity has been brought into question and he will not tolerate this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. We 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 would be reasonable for the person to have asked for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. When considering if there is evidence of fault, 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)
5. And, we have the discretion to decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into any complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered:
• Mr B’s complaint to the Ombudsman;
• The Council’s Stage 1 and 2 complaint responses;
• The Council’s ‘Policy on the management of unreasonable complainant behaviour’
• The ‘Greenwich Library and Information Service Byelaws’;
• Mr B’s comments on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

Administrative background

7. The Council’s unreasonable complainant policy says:
8. “…the Council does not expect its Councillors or staff to tolerate behaviour by complainants which is unacceptable, for example which is abusive, offensive or threatening, and it will take action to protect Councillors and staff from harassment and harm resulting from that behaviour.”
9. The library Byelaws also say:

“No person shall behave in a disorderly manner in the library, use violent, abusive or obscene language therein, or intentionally or recklessly cause or do anything likely to cause injury to any other person or property.”

and

“A library officer may exclude any person who contravenes any of the foregoing byelaws from any library maintained by the library authority under the Act.”

What happened

10. Mr B visited one of the Council’s libraries on 28 November. He complained to the library staff that:
• A child was crying in the library and the staff were failing to address the situation, and,
• He was unhappy with the quality of a document he had paid to have printed.
11. Mr B says the staff objected to him raising his concerns. The library operator says Mr B was rude and confrontational, and had been on previous occasions.
12. Mr B submitted a formal complaint to the Council, as he felt the library staff had failed to properly deal with his concerns. In making his complaint, the Council says Mr B wanted it recorded that he had had problems with this library before as, in his view, the staff were mainly foreigners whose standards are rather limited.
13. Meantime, the library operator sent a letter to Mr B banning him from all the Council’s libraries for 6 months. The letter said the PA could appeal the decision, but Mr B says he did not receive the letter.
14. Separately, the Council replied to Mr B’s complaint on 13 December. It said it was aware its library operator had sent a banning letter, and that if he wished to dispute the decision, he should appeal. It therefore did not uphold the complaint.
15. Mr B did not appeal against the decision to ban him from the libraries.
16. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr B said:

“I was a victim of uncouth people from countries without any history of a public library service and therefore do not know how they should conduct themselves. Royal Greenwich is complicit with such unethical behaviour and should be held directly responsible for the appalling way in which I was treated.”

Assessment

17. I appreciate Mr B feels the library staff and the Council failed to adequately deal with the concerns he raised about his visit to the library.
18. But the views Mr B has expressed about where the library staff come from and the ‘standards’ they possess, are unacceptable and offensive. With reference to paragraphs 4 and 7-9 above, the Council/library operator was entitled to reach its own view that Mr B’s behaviour/comments were rude and confrontational, and to take action to protect its staff from this. I find its decision to ban Mr B was proportionate in the circumstances. Furthermore, if Mr B felt his integrity was being questioned, it was open to him to challenge the banning decision by appealing.
19. Overall, I find there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant the Ombudsman starting an investigation into Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

20. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman