The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the room availability at Mr X’s local library. This is because an investigation is unlikely to result in a worthwhile outcome.
The complaint
Mr X complained that the Council has failed to make two meeting rooms available at his local library. He also complained about the length of time the Council took to respond to his complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: 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), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council about the lack of availability of public computers at his local library. He said the Council should open two meeting rooms which were usually closed to the public to solve the problem.
The Council took several months to respond to Mr X’s complaint. The Council apologised for the delay and Mr X’s inconvenience. The Council acknowledged that the library became oversubscribed at busy periods and advised that it would open one of the meeting rooms and provide a timetable each week.
Mr X escalated the complaint as he was unhappy with the Council’s response and the time taken to respond to the complaint. Mr X advised he wanted the Council to make one of the larger meeting rooms available. The Council again took several months to respond to Mr X and apologised again for the delay. This time the Council explained why it could not offer the other meeting room but acknowledged Mr X’s frustration at the situation.
Mr X has brought the complaint to the Ombudsman as he remains unhappy with the situation. The evidence shows the Council’s complaint response times have been longer than we would expect however there is no evidence Mr X has sustained a significant personal injustice due to this delay.
The Council has put forward a proportionate remedy which addresses Mr X’s original complaint and provides a rational explanation for why it cannot offer Mr X’s preferred meeting room to the public. These were reasonable actions for the Council to take. An investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome for Mr X.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not result in a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman