Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the operation of a golf centre. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the operation of a golf centre. He says it has been negligent, resulting in him being hit on the head with a golf ball. He seeks compensation, the closing of the centre and the discipling or sacking of Council officers involved.

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 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Following an incident whereby he was hit on the head by a golf ball, Mr X complained to the Council about its approach to the management of a health and safety risk at the golf centre from where the ball came.
6. The Council explained it had been working with the centre to reduce the likelihood of balls escaping and to monitor the effectiveness of the measures taken. It said the centre had worked constructively with the Council and implemented a number of measures, some requested by the Council and others suggested by the centre. It advised that as it was satisfied with the approach being taken, and with the progress being made, it did not agree that prosecuting the management of the centre would be an appropriate course of action. It told Mr X it would not be disciplining or sacking staff and, as it had not been negligent, it would not be making any payment to him.
7. While I understand Mr X is disappointed with the Council’s response to his complaint, an investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find fault by the Council, add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome. I see no grounds to suggest we would recommend the Council make a payment to Mr X and, by law, we cannot involve ourselves in personnel matters.
8. If Mr X believes the Council has been negligent and wants to seek damages, it is open to him to take the Council to court.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman