Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of the complaints he made about its library staff. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has failed to properly address his complaints of unacceptable, threatening and aggressive behaviour he received from individual members of staff at a library he uses. He says the members of staff concerned should be disciplined and he should be informed about what has happened as a result of his complaints against them. He also seeks compensation for the distress caused to him.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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)

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information Mr X provided, including the Council’s responses to his complaint. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X made complaints to the Council about its library service and library staff which covered his access to the library’s computers, health and safety issues and the behaviour of individual members of staff towards him which he found unacceptable.
6. The Council responded to these issues and with regard to Mr X’s complaints about the behaviour of named staff, it apologised to him if this had fallen short of its usual high standards. It confirmed this matter had not just been ‘swept under the carpet’ but had been investigated and discussed with the relevant managers and was being addressed.
7. At the final stage of its complaints procedure, the Council explained that complaints about staff were managed and investigated by line managers with advice from Human Resources and internal audit services. It explained that the details of any disciplinary action were a confidential matter between the Council and the employee which it would not share with members of the public. However, it repeated that his concerns had been escalated to the appropriate managers for consideration.
8. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to us.

Assessment

9. While I understand Mr X has been upset by the behaviour of some staff at the library he uses, we do not investigate every complaint we receive and I do not consider there are grounds sufficient to warrant an investigation in this case.
10. The Council has told Mr X that the appropriate managers have been informed of his concerns about staff behaviour and that they are being investigated and addressed. Any disciplinary consequences arising from the Council’s investigation are confidential and will not be shared with Mr X and this particular issue falls outside our jurisdiction as highlighted by paragraph 3 of this statement.
11. Moreover, even if we were to investigate and find fault, I do not consider it likely we would recommend compensation be paid to Mr X.
12. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X has referred to additional examples of where he says he has been treated unfairly by library staff, and differently to other members of the public, particularly with regard to emergency access to computers during the pandemic. Information from the Council shows that over a 10-week period he had emergency computer access 23 times and that staff have learnt lessons from Mr X’s case and have been reminded of the need to be professional and polite with all customers. A further investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman