Summary
Mr C complained about the closure of his local library and re-development of the building. He said that the council had not done what they said they would do; that they had provided inaccurate information on an external funding application; and that they did not deal reasonably with his subsequent complaints.
Our investigation found that the council had undertaken community consultation and consideration of the various options for the re-development as they had said they would. Mr C did not agree with the option chosen, but this was a discretionary decision that the council were entitled to make. On the funding application, we found that some of the information Mr C described as inaccurate was subjective, but that this did not necessarily make it inaccurate. Other comments were contained within internal documentation which, although relevant to the application, did not actually form part of the submitted application.
We also found that, although there was an initial delay in passing the complaint to the relevant department, overall the council complied with their complaints procedure and provided Mr C with comprehensive information in response to his concerns. Mr C did not agree with the council's viewpoint on certain issues, but this was not the same as failing to deal with these issues.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201300089 as a PDF (11.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018