Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s response to his reports a nightclub is excessively hot and this has led to customers collapsing. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council or a personal injustice to Mr B.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complains the Council has failed to properly investigate his reports that a nightclub has inadequate ventilation and gets excessively hot. Mr B says one person has died and others have collapsed as a result of the heat, but the Council has not carried out an inspection when the nightclub is hosting an event and has not taken any formal enforcement action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information provided by Mr B and the Council’s response to his complaints. I sent a draft decision to Mr B and invited comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. While Mr B does not consider the Council has adequately responded to his concerns, the Ombudsman can only criticise the Council’s decisions if they are made with fault. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault because officers have considered the complaint Mr B made, visited the venue, considered the heat extraction system in place, considered its procedures and the thresholds for conducting further investigation or taking action and explained its decisions to Mr B.
6. I note that despite being asked for this information, Mr B has not provided the Council with any evidence to substantiate the concerns he has raised about excessive temperatures inside the venue. Without any contradicting evidence to investigate further, there are no reasons for the Ombudsman to criticise the way the Council has made its decision.
7. The Council has confirmed to Mr B the coroner concluded the death Mr B referred to as being heat related was due to drugs. The Council has also explained to Mr B it has considered the information provided by the manager of the venue about the numbers of people treated for heat related illnesses and that nobody has been admitted to hospital as a result. The management had also agreed to take and record the temperatures in the venue during events.
8. Even if the Ombudsman could say there was fault by the Council in the way it has reached its decisions, there is no apparent injustice to Mr B. Mr B has not explained to the Council whether he is a regular visitor to the venue, a member of staff or how he is affected by the heat and ventilation at the venue that he complains about. Mr B also did not reply to my draft decision which provided him with an opportunity to explain his injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault causing a personal injustice to Mr B.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman