Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a member of staff verbally abused the complainant in a library. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains a member of library staff verbally abused him in a library. Mr X wants the Council to acknowledge the abuse, apologise and pay compensation.

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. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s response. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X complained to the Council that a member of library staff had verbally abused him. Mr X alleged she said, “stand over there boy” while pointing at a waiting area. Mr X says the remark was humiliating, demeaning and has echoes of the way slave owners referred to slaves. Mr X has decided to stop using the library due to what happened.
5. In response the Council spoke to Mr X and to staff. None of the staff members recalled anything unusual happening that day and nobody heard anyone make derogatory comments. The Council suggested Mr X may have misheard what was said due to traffic noise and the officer wearing a face mask and shield. The Council said there was no CCTV and no independent witnesses. The Council partially upheld the complaint on the grounds that, as the allegation is one person’s word against another’s, it was not possible to decide what happened. The Council apologised for how Mr X felt but said there was no evidence the comment was made. The Council apologised for a delayed response to the complaint.
6. Mr X is dissatisfied with the response. He is convinced the officer verbally abused him and said the Council is gaslighting him and manipulating him. For example, the Council said Mr X agreed it was possible he had misheard the comment but Mr X says he said it was not impossible he had misheard. Mr X says the Council is guilty of a cover-up. Mr X wants an apology for being verbally abused and compensation.

Assessment

7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the lack of independent witnesses mean it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. Mr X is convinced he was verbally abused and I have no reason to doubt his conviction regarding what he heard. But, equally, I have no reason, or evidence, to doubt the Council which, despite interviewing staff, has not found anything to suggest any abusive comments were made or that anything untoward happened. The lack of evidence means there would not be anything new for us to investigate. In addition, the Council acted appropriately by speaking to everyone involved to try to find out what happened. The Council has not dismissed the complaint but said there is no evidence to substantiate it. Instead it has suggested that Mr X might have misheard what was said due to traffic noise and face coverings.
8. There was some delay by the Council in responding to the complaint. But, this does not require an investigation because the Council explained what caused the delay and apologised.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman