Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s health and safety investigation after the complainant and his son became ill after using a hot tub in a holiday village. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council’s actions did not lead to the injustice at the heart of the complaint. Even if we were to investigate, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, is unhappy about the Council’s health and safety investigation after he and his son became ill after using a hot tub in a holiday village. Mr X says the hot tubs are still contaminated and the Council has not done enough to address this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. In August 2020, Mr X contacted the Council after he and his son became unwell after they used a hot tub in a holiday village. In its responses to Mr X the Council set out the actions it had taken. The Council said:
• It had carried out various visits to the holiday village during which samples were taken from hot tubs.
• It had found E. Coli in the hot tub used by Mr X’s family but could not link it to the illness suffered by Mr X and his son.
• It had spoken at length with the operators of the holiday village who had complied with the Council.
• The operator had drained and cleaned any hot tubs where the Council had found contamination.
• It had carried out further visits when the park reopened after a closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Twenty-six samples across three visits had identified contamination in one hot tub. The operator would empty, clean, and re-test the hot tub before it was used again.
• An improvement programme had been put in place with the holiday village.
• Communication with Mr X had not been sufficient and some of the issues he raised could have been dealt with at an earlier stage.
• While the Council’s work was thorough, its record keeping could have been better.

Assessment

6. I understand how concerned Mr X is about the issues at the heart of his complaint. However, we do not investigate all the complaints we receive. We need to consider if fault by a council or other body caused the complainant significant personal injustice.
7. The Council only became involved in Mr X’s case after he and his son had become ill. The main injustice to Mr X flows from the illness he and his son suffered. This was not caused by the Council and so we will not investigate.
8. Even if we were to investigate Mr X’s complaint, the role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. Based on the information I have seen it is unlikely we would question the professional judgment of the Council officers involved. The Council has accepted its communications with Mr X and record keeping could have been better. It is unlikely we could add anything to the response Mr X has already received. An investigation by the Ombudsman is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council’s actions did not lead to the injustice at the heart of the complaint. Even if we were to investigate, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman