Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of an incident at a public library and its decision to impose a temporary ban. This is because we could not add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that says she pre‑booked the library’s scanner computer due to her disability, but staff failed to make it available on arrival. Another user occupied the scanner area, refused to move, and staff did not intervene. Ms X says the staff then mishandled the conflict, and allowed the other user to harass, record, and physically kick her. Ms X says she was unfairly banned for “provoking” when she was defending herself, and that staff failed to ensure access, safety, or support despite her being neurodivergent.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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. The Council investigated Ms X’s concerns. Based on the evidence available to it, the Council reached a view about what happened, how staff responded, and whether formal action was appropriate. It also considered Ms X’s appeal and upheld its original decision to temporarily ban Ms X from the library.
6. The Council explained the basis on which it made its decision, including why it considered the actions taken by staff to be appropriate in a public library setting, and why it considered the ban to be proportionate. It also acknowledged the distress Ms X experienced and said it made its decision on the available evidence following its investigation and appeal process.
7. We do not consider we could add to the Council’s consideration of disputed events, staff conduct, or its judgement about managing behaviour in the library. We also cannot determine criminal liability or make findings about assault. The Council was correct to signpost Ms X to the police.
8. There are clearly strongly differing accounts of what took place during the incident. However, we were not present and do not have independent evidence that would allow us to determine what was said or done by those involved. In these circumstances, we would be reliant on the same evidence the Council has already considered. An Ombudsman investigation is therefore unlikely to reach a more robust or different view. Therefore, we will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we could not achieve a different outcome

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a worthwhile outcome

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman