Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint about an incident involving a security guard at a library. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the Council) failed to properly investigate his complaint about an incident involving a security guard at the library in October 2025. He said this caused him distress and a lack of trust that the Council had treated him fairly.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B complained to the Council in mid-October 2025 about an incident in a library which had occurred one evening the previous week. He alleged a security guard had approached him in an aggressive manner and told him to stop talking or leave the library. Mr B said he was quietly whispering to a friend and was not causing a disturbance. He also alleged the security guard did not speak to another library user nearby talking loudly on their phone.
7. Mr B said when the guard did approach that person a little later he spoke to them much more politely and looked back at Mr B with a hostile expression.
8. Mr B said he spoke to a manager immediately, but the security guard also followed him and intervened in the conversation. The manager said they would speak to the guard. Mr B returned to his place but said the security guard continued to intimidate him.
9. He requested the Council investigate the events and review the CCTV footage in the building. He maintained he had not acted in an argumentative or disruptive manner at any point. He wanted disciplinary action taken against the guard and retraining of the security staff.
10. The Council responded to the complaint at the end of October at stage one of its complaints procedure. It had spoken to the staff involved in the incident and asked another remember of staff on duty that evening for their view, but they had not seen or heard anything. The security guard had given a different version of events: he said Mr B had been having a loud conversation with his friend and responded angrily when he was asked to quieten down. The manager confirmed she had spoken to Mr B and advised him how to make a complaint. She had declined to give him the security guard’s name. The Council sad she should have given his name as it was displayed on his ID badge.
11. The Council noted the accounts given by the officers were different to Mr B’s. It said they were both experienced staff and it had no reason to doubt what they were saying. It suggested perhaps Mr B had not been aware of how loudly he was speaking. The Council also explained that it could not access the CCTV at the library; it was only available to the police in the case of a reported crime. It also said the CCTV captures only visual images and does not have audio.
12. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant disciplinary action and felt it was a case of different perceptions from both sides. It said the security guard concerned was experienced and well-thought of. While it would not be taken the requested action, it would reiterate to all staff and security the importance of interacting with customers in a satisfactory way and that when asked for the name of a member of staff it should be given.
13. Mr B escalated the complaint to stage two on 4 November. He felt the stage one response was biased and relied solely on staff accounts and dismissed available evidence including witness testimony and CCTV footage. The Council responded at the beginning of December. It said it had fully reviewed the complaint and did not intend to question Mr B’s account or give undue weight to the staff accounts. It said again that it was difficult to reach a view as to what actually happened given the differing recollections and the fact it could not access the CCTV footage unless a crime had been reported. It said it was unable to substantiate the claims of aggressive or intimidating behaviour but acknowledged that Mr B had felt uncomfortable and upset by the experience. It also apologised for the lack of transparency over the name badge and said staff had been reminded of the importance of wearing badges and providing names when requested. It recognised Mr B had been genuinely affected by the incident and offered mediation to attempt to resolve his concerns.
14. Mr B did not wish to accept the mediation offer as he did not believe the Council would treat him fairly. He complained to us.

Findings

15. I understand Mr B was left distressed and upset by the incident in October 2025. However, in the absence of any further evidence, I cannot say what happened between Mr B and the security guard. I am satisfied the Council took reasonable steps to gather what evidence was available from the staff on duty and those involved in the incident. It could not access the CCTV footage, so no other corroboration was possible. In those circumstances it could not conclude the security guard had behaved in an unacceptable way to warrant disciplinary action.
16. I consider the stage one response did place undue weight on the experience of the staff involved, which led to Mr B feeling his account had been dismissed unfairly. But the Council recognised this in its stage two response and provided reassurance that Mr B’s account had been equally considered. It also offered mediation in an attempt to resolve the impasse which I consider was a reasonable way forward.

Back to top

Decision

17. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman