Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the conduct of a Council librarian. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s own investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Ms B, complains a Council librarian was extremely rude and unprofessional to her on more than one occasion. Ms B complains the Council has not investigated her complaint properly and has wrongly accused her of being rude to staff.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement,
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms B.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms B complained to the Council about a librarian’s conduct.
6. The Council’s initial response to Ms B’s complaint included an apology for the standard of service she received. The Council added that the librarian had received additional customer service training.
7. But, in its final response to Ms B’s complaint, the Council did not uphold her complaint.
8. The Council said the librarian disputed Ms B’s account of what happened and the only other person present at the time could not recall the incident.
9. The Council said it had since put in place a suggestions box and mystery shopper visits. It also accused Ms B of being rude.
10. The Council provided Ms B with a copy of the Council’s library code of conduct and said it had also shared this document with the librarian. The Council apologised for the delay providing Ms B with this document and also for the delay responding to her stage 2 complaint.
11. Ms B was not satisfied with the Council’s investigation of her complaint, so complained to us.
12. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint.
13. We have been provided with conflicting accounts of an incident. We must place some weight on both accounts of what happened. Based on the information available, we cannot say it is more likely than not the librarian was at fault.
14. Also, the Council has already contacted the only potential witness but they did not recall the incident. So, it is highly unlikely an investigation would be a good use of our limited resources or add to the investigation already undertaken by the Council.
15. I find an investigation of the accusations against Ms B is not justified. Clearly, both Ms B and Council officers have raised issues about the conduct of each other. Although the Council has not upheld Ms B’s complaint, the Council has acted reasonably by putting in place a suggestions box and a mystery shopper service. The Council has also shared the library code of conduct with both Ms B and the librarian she has complained about.
16. So, the Council has taken action in response to Ms B’s concerns and despite its comments about her conduct, Ms B has not been prevented from using the Council’s library. So, Ms B has not suffered a significant injustice which would justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s own investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman