The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a warning letter sent to the complainant about her behaviour at a library. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. An investigation is unlikely to establish whether the Council acted with fault, and the injustice caused by the warning letter is not significant enough to justify our continued involvement in the case.
Complaint summary The complainant, whom I refer to as ‘Library User X’, is unhappy the Council sent her a warning letter about her behaviour, following two separate incidents at a library involving other library users and staff, yet it did not send a letter to one of the users who was intimidating and rude. Library User X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her subsequent complaint.
Library User X says she is being treated differently to other library users, and the situation has made her feel unwell and stressed.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman can 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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Library User X and the Council, which included a copy of the warning letter and confirmation that calls between Library User X and the Council were not recorded.
I also considered our Assessment Code, and what Library User X told me during our telephone conversation.
My assessment
The Ombudsman will not investigate Library User X’s complaint.
This is because it is unlikely an investigation would uncover any independent evidence to enable us to establish what happened/what was said during the two incidents at the library, or what was said in Library User X’s Stage 1 telephone conversation with a council officer. So, it would not be possible for the Ombudsman to establish whether the Council acted with fault in relation to the matters complained about.
Furthermore, whilst I appreciate Library User X was upset and distressed about receiving the warning letter and has chosen not to attend the library since then, she is still allowed to visit. On balance, I am not persuaded the injustice caused by the letter is serious enough to warrant our continued involvement in the case.
Final decision
We will not investigate Library User X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence to conclude the Council acted with fault, and the injustice caused by the warning letter is not significant enough to justify our continued involvement in the matter.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman