Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incident in a library. This is because the Council has provided a proportionate response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, is dissatisfied with the Council’s response after he complained about an incident in a library. Mr X wants the Council to apologise for ordering him to leave the library and to pay him 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:

• If the Council has provided a proportionate response, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 responses. 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 says library staff accused him of drinking wine in the library and ordered him to leave. Mr X says staff would not believe him when he showed them it was apple juice and would not let him speak to a manager. Mr X says staff said no manager was available but Mr X met a manager at the entrance. The manager confirmed it was juice in the bottle. Mr X says the Council should have immediately offered an apology for wrongly accusing him. Mr X says the event was deeply humiliating and degrading and he has not used the library since last August.
5. The Council has apologised to Mr X because he felt harassed and said there was a mix up over the drink. It said staff had not meant to harass him. The Council said he was asked to leave because he was not wearing a face covering properly. The Council said the actions were taken to maintain a safe Covid environment. Mr X says he was wearing a mask but it kept falling down so it was not covering his nose and mouth. Mr X says staff were aggressive towards him.
6. The Council noted that Mr X has now explained he has a lanyard to show he is exempt from wearing a face covering. The Council has invited Mr X to use the library and to bring his exemption. The Council has spoken to Mr X, apologised several times and notes that during a call Mr X said he was happy with the response.
7. However, Mr X is still dissatisfied with the Council’s response because it has not apologised for ordering him to leave the building. Mr X has linked the request to leave with the incident with the juice. Mr X wants a further apology and compensation.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a proportionate response. It has explained there was a mix-up over the juice and has apologised for how the events made Mr X feel. It has explained that he was asked to leave because he was not wearing a face covering correctly. It has said there was no intention to harass him and Mr X is welcome to use the library.
9. I appreciate Mr X feels aggrieved and found the incident very upsetting but, once the Council’s response and explanation are taken into account, there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a fair response and there is not remaining enough injustice to require an investigation or compensation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman