The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council decision to extend the period the complainant is excluded from using its libraries. There is not enough fault in the way the Council made its decision.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council has: unreasonably banned her from its libraries until May 2025 encouraged other library users to bully her; and made petty false claims against her.
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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In March, the Council excluded Ms X from its libraries for six months. The Council explained the reasons for this to her.
After she was excluded from the libraries, Ms X entered an unstaffed library, knowing she should not. Her visit was recorded on CCTV, and she acknowledged she entered the library after she was excluded. In view of her breach of the exclusion, the Council extended the exclusion until May 2025.
I have seen no evidence the Council has encouraged members of the public to bully Ms X.
The Council’s extension of Ms X’s exclusion is in line with its published Library Exclusion Policy.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to extend Ms X’s ban from using its libraries.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman