Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaints about reductions to exercise classes at her local leisure centre and the way the Council monitors the efficiency and outcomes of the leisure centre. The changes to the class timetable do not cause Ms B a significant enough personal injustice to warrant an investigation. And whether the leisure centre provides value for money for council tax payers is a matter that affects all or most of the people in the area.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, complains her local leisure centre introduced changes to the duration of the yoga classes she attends. Ms B has questioned how the Council monitors the effectiveness of what the leisure centre offers and says she wants the opportunity to attend additional classes that are suitable for her at no extra cost. Ms B says her membership is worth less than it was.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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 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

5. I have considered Ms B’s complaint and the Council’s response to our enquiries. I sent a draft decision to Ms B and invited comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The leisure centre receives a grant from the Council. The Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint about the management of the leisure centre or whether it provides an efficient and good value service from the grant it receives. This is because the funding comes from council tax monies and the way the Council spends the money it raises through council tax affects all or most of the people in the area.
7. As a member of the leisure centre, Ms B has complained about a reduction in class times. The centre planned to reduce the yoga classes from 90 minutes to 60 minutes and have a separate 30-minute mindfulness class. In response to Ms B’s complaint, this change has not yet taken place, with half the classes being reduced to 60 minutes and half remaining at 90 minutes.
8. While Ms B does not agree with the changes, any injustice to her caused by the changes to the exercise class timetable is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.
9. Ms B also complains about the way the Council has dealt with her complaint. The Ombudsman has a general discretion whether to start or continue an investigation into a complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about the Council’s complaints handling as a separate issue when the Ombudsman is not investigating the issues that led to the complaints

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the changes to the class timetable do not cause Ms B a significant enough personal injustice to warrant an investigation. And whether the leisure centre provides value for money for council tax payers is a matter that affects all or most of the people in the area.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman