Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s consultation when considering the future of its mobile library service as he considered its information was biased and inadequate causing him distress. The Council has reviewed its decision to decommission the mobile library service and considered further information which is an outcome Mr X was seeking. So, we are ending our investigation into Mr X’s complaint as any further investigation would not lead to a different outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant Mr X. He complains about the consultation carried out by the Council when considering the future of its mobile library service. Mr X says the information provided was biased and inadequate and the Council did not provide the clarification he requested even though he submitted a Freedom of Information request.
2. Mr X says the Council’s consultation has caused him distress. Mr X wants the Council to extend the consultation process, correct errors and provide more information on costs and ‘replacements’ for the mobile library service.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the council, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him. I considered documents on the Council’s website about the consultation and decision on the mobile library service.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Events leading to the complaint

10. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information reviewed during my investigation.
11. The Council commissions a contractor to operate its library services including running four mobile libraries. The mobile libraries have a route of 374 stops working a four-week rotation covering all Devon. The Council noted a decline in active users, visits, and physical loans in the past 10 years.
12. The Council held an eight-week consultation period on a proposal to stop the mobile library services. The Council advertised the consultation on the Council’s website. The consultation explained the proposal and gave information about the use of the mobile library service. It asked for views on the proposal and alternatives available to help continue to engage with library services.
13. Mr X complained to the Council during the consultation period and asked for more information to justify the proposal for financial reasons, costs of the proposed alternatives and the social impact. Mr X considered the data used was biased and inadequate and the contractor had failed to respond to his questions on the proposal.
14. The Council said it was not responsible for delivering library services as it commissioned the contractor to provide the service. The Council considered it appropriate for the contractor to deal with the complaint and forwarded the complaint. Mr X asked the Council to deal with the complaint as it was responsible for the library service. Mr X says neither the Council nor the contractor have responded to his complaint.
15. Mr X made a FOI request about the information he wanted on library use which the Council responded to. Mr X says that although the FOI response did not provide all the information he sought, he has been able to take part in the consultation and send in comments.
16. The Council’s Cabinet considered an Impact Assessment report on the closure of the mobile libraries and the alternative offers in place. The report considered the consultation responses with recommendations to provide alternative services. The Cabinet decide to decommission the mobile library service and implement plans including mitigation measures to help library users.
17. A councillor ‘called-in’ the decision for a review and it was discussed at the Council’s Corporate Infrastructure and Regulatory Services Scrutiny Committee (Committee). The Committee discussed the matter and made recommendations for the Cabinet to consider about the decision. These included reconsidering the decision to decommission the mobile library service, gain precise figures on leasing vehicles, look at costs and alternative library provision.
18. The Cabinet reconsidered its decision a few months later. The Cabinet responded to questions from the public about the mobile library service. It considered a report and updated Impact Assessment on closing the mobile library service. This included more details on costs and looking at alternative provision. The Cabinet acknowledged the Council’s statutory duty to provide library services, considered the Council’s ‘Library offer’ to its residents, financial challenges and providing a mobile library service. It also looked at the consultation responses and alternative methods of service delivery.
19. The Cabinet decided to decommission the mobile library service and provide additional funding to facilitate local community library developments.

Analysis

20. A council is responsible for providing a comprehensive and efficient library service for all people wanting to make use of it. Government standards suggest that public libraries should be located to provide convenient access for users, adequate opening hours, choice in books and materials, and access to electronic information resources.
21. We may consider complaints about faults in how the service is being run if the faults have caused a complainant difficulty. But it is up to each council to decide the level of funding it puts into its library service. We could look at the process followed in which the decision was made, and if we found evidence of fault, we could recommend the council review a decision if appropriate.
22. Mr X complains about the consultation carried out about the proposal to decommission the mobile library service and the information available. The documents show the Council’s Cabinet considered the proposal and was asked to reconsider it using more details. The information was provided, and the Cabinet reviewed its decision including the extra information. The recommendation to review the decision is the likely outcome we would seek should we investigate and find fault in the way the Council considered its decision to decommission the mobile library service. It is also an outcome Mr X was seeking to ensure there was more detailed information available to inform the proposal. So, I do not consider that any further investigation would lead to a different outcome for Mr X as the Council has revisited its decision.
23. If a complainant considers a council makes any general changes to its library services which makes it no longer “comprehensive or efficient” they can complain to the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. So, it is open to Mr X to take this action if he disagrees with the Council’s decision to decommission the mobile library service. The Secretary of State is another body better placed to consider any concerns Mr X may have about this as it can direct the Council on its library services.
24. I have not investigated any concerns Mr X may have about the Council’s response to his FOI request. If Mr X is unhappy with the response to his request, he may complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Its decision may be appealed at a Tribunal. I see no reason why Mr X cannot raise a complaint with the ICO.

25. When Mr X complained the Council said it was not responsible for the delivery of library services as it had commissioned the contractor to do so. However even though the Council has commissioned a contractor to provide services it retains overall responsibility for the function. So, while the Council passed Mr X’s complaint to the contractor to respond to it should have retained an overview of the complaint to ensure Mr X’s concerns were responded to.

26. However, Mr X has been able to participate in the consultation process, make an FOI request and send in comments. In addition, the decision on the mobile libraries has been reviewed. So, I do not consider the failure to respond to Mr X’s complaint has caused Mr X such a significant injustice to justify our involvement in pursing the matter further. This is especially as further investigation would not lead to different outcome as the Council’s decision on the mobile libraries has been reconsidered.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I am ending my investigation. The Council has reconsidered its decision to decommission it mobile library service which is an outcome Mr X was seeking. So, I do not consider that any further investigation would lead to a different outcome for Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman