Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint a council officer assaulted him. This is because the Ombudsman cannot investigate allegations of crime and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is also unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve what Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains a council officer assaulted him when he was asked to leave a community library. Mr X wants the Council to pay compensation. Mr X is also unhappy the Council operates a single stage complaints process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint where the body complained about is not responsible for the issue being raised. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(1), as amended)
4. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. 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

6. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also 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

7. In December 2019, Mr X visited a community library. Because of his behaviour during the visit, the library decided to issue Mr X with a three-month ban. A member of the library’s staff handed Mr X a letter explaining the ban. The library is not operated by the Council, but it has an arrangement with the Council which is located next door to provide security. Because the library’s staff were concerned about Mr X’s behaviour, they asked security staff to escort Mr X off the premises.
8. Mr X has complained to the Council about the actions of the Council’s Security and CCTV manager who responded to the library’s request for help. Mr X says he was “assaulted by a burly henchman” who placed him in a “wrist lock”. Mr X says he was concerned the member of staff was going to throw him down the library’s stairs. Mr X has told the Council he expects “a large amount of compensation, not just a small amount.”
9. Mr X says the Council’s member of staff assaulted him. Assault is a crime and is not something the Ombudsman can investigate. If Mr X thinks a crime has been committed, he should contact the Police. He could also pursue a personal injury claim against the Council, but this is not something the Ombudsman can decide. Such matters are for insurers, and ultimately, the courts.
10. The decision to ban Mr X from the library is not one we can consider because it was not taken by the Council. But the Council has responded to Mr X’s complaint about the actions of its Security and CCTV manager. In its response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council said the library’s staff were glad when help arrived. The Security and CCTV manager placed his hand on Mr X’s back to “gently guide” him out of the library. The Council says that Mr X then kicked the member of staff on the ankle. It says that Mr X was “shouting and swearing at the security officer whilst he was being removed” and he “continued to shout…whilst stood on the pavement outside the library.” The Council has said it is satisfied the member of staff “acted professionally and within the remit of his role.”
11. As part of its investigation into Mr X’s complaint, the Council says it has spoken to the staff who were in the library at the time. This is what we would expect the Council to do. There is a clear difference of opinion about what happened in the library. But as I have already said, the Ombudsman cannot investigate crimes, and it is for the Council to weigh the evidence available, and to form a view about what happened. As I did not see the incident, it is unlikely I could add to the Council’s response, or that an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
12. Mr X is also unhappy the Council operates a complaints process which only contains a single stage. It is for the Council to decide what complaints process it operates. There is no requirement for a corporate complaints process to contain more than one stage, and so an investigation would be unlikely to find the Council to be at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because we cannot investigate allegations of crime, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome or achieve what Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman