Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to Mr X’s contact with staff at a library facility. There is not enough evidence of fault nor significant injustice. Nor will we consider the Council’s complaint handling, because they have acknowledged and apologised for the delay.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council wrongly said he had damaged a book at a library facility and decided to limit his activity in the library. He also complained about a delay in the Council’s Stage 2 response to his complaint. He said this had caused him anxiety and distress.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice because of the fault alleged is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. This is a dispute about whether Mr X damaged a book. The Council say its staff saw damage to the item after Mr X used it. And Mr X denies causing any damage. We will not investigate because any injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.
6. The Council’s policy states that they can limit a person’s activity in the library due to unacceptable behaviour without warning. The Council sent a letter to Mr X stating his behaviour is unacceptable due to refusal to comply with instructions and followed this up with another warning after it continued to have reports about Mr X’s conduct. This decision was consistent with the Council’s policy and it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions.
7. The Council have acknowledged delay in their Stage 2 response and apologised. This is suitable and proportionate remedy for any injustice caused by delays.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault and there is no significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman