Medway Council (19 003 261)

Category : Other Categories > Leisure and culture

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 07 Oct 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained a booking error made by the Council’s leisure centre caused his business to lose £5384.99. He says the Council has failed to reimburse him despite him providing evidence of his financial loss and has failed to resolve his complaint in a timely manner. The Ombudsman has found the Council at fault for making a booking error. However, that has not caused a significant injustice as it offered Mr X the outside sports pitch for free which was an adequate alternative.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained booking errors made by the Council’s leisure Centre have caused his business to lose £5384.99. Mr X said the Council failed to:
    • send him a block booking form in December 2018 before his booking ended;
    • provide use of the sports hall as requested on Sunday 6 January; Sunday 13 January and Sunday 3 February.
    • respond to his requests for information in a timely manner;
    • resolve his complaint in a timely manner; and
    • reimburse him for loss of earnings.
  2. Mr X says he had gone to significant time and effort in trying to resolve the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered information provided by the Council including its complaint correspondence and relevant policies.
  2. Mr X and Council both had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. For ease of reading, in this draft decision I refer to the leisure centre as the Council and any actions taken by, or affecting the business, as Mr X.
  2. Mr X owns a business which provides physical activity classes to children. Since 2017, Mr X’s business had rented the sports hall at the Council’s leisure centre.
  3. Mr X completed a block-booking form every three-four months specifying the dates he wanted to hire the sports hall. Mr X said the Council sent this form to him before the next block-booking ended. The booking form states that all bookings are subject to written confirmation.
  4. Mr X’s block-booking ended on 16 December 2018. The following day, a staff member emailed the Council saying they would like to continue their regular booking and asked whether they needed to complete a booking form. They said they were closed between 19 December 2018 and 2 January 2019 and emails and invoices would be actioned on return. The Council responded the same day, asking them to complete a block-booking form.
  5. On 3 January 2019, the Council telephoned Mr X as it had not received a block-booking form. The Council said it could not provide the sports hall on 6 January 2019 but offered an alternative room Mr X could use. It offered that room free of charge. Mr X sent the Council the completed block-booking form.
  6. On 9 January 2019, the Council emailed Mr X a confirmation email. It confirmed he would have use of the sports hall except on 3 February and 14 July where the booking would be on the outside sports pitches.
  7. On 13 January 2019, the Council made an error in how it dealt with Mr X’s booking. That meant the sports hall was not available. The Council offered the staff member working for Mr X the outside sports pitches. They decided to complete the session outside.
  8. Following this, there were several emails between Mr X and the Council. Mr X was unhappy the Council had moved the class outside on 13 January 2019 and was unhappy in how the Council had responded to these concerns. He asked for a copy of the Councils child protection policy and complaints procedure.
  9. An officer at the Council reviewed what had happened and emailed Mr X suggesting a meeting between him and the Council was the best way to resolve any outstanding concerns. Mr X and the Council were unable to agree on a venue or date for the meeting. During that correspondence, the Council failed to respond to an email from Mr X for three weeks. Mr X complained to the Council stating it had failed to provide the policies he had asked for, that it had handled his concerns disgracefully and that he had been treated with contempt.
  10. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint and sent him a stage one complaint response with the relevant policies. It accepted it had made an error with the booking on 13 January 2019, but considered the matter resolved unless Mr X had something specific, he would like the Council to do.
  11. Mr X responded to the Council and said he had lost customers because of its staff incompetence and he wanted compensation. The Council offered Mr X free venue hire for three-weeks.
  12. On 4 April 2019, Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two. Mr X did not provide details of his complaint and why he was unhappy with the stage one response on the on-line complaint form. He would not discuss his complaint with the investigating officer and told them to contact the leisure centre for information on his complaint. The Council said that delayed its investigation process and it had to decide, based on the information provided by the leisure centre, whether it had enough information to accept Mr X’s stage two complaint.
  13. On 12 April 2019, the Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint and sent him a letter stating it would respond to it in the next 15 days. Mr X spoke with the Council the same day and it confirmed it would send a response by 8 May 2019.
  14. The Council’s stage two complaint response said Mr X did not have a continuous rolling block-booking with the Council and that clubs must complete a block-booking form to renew a booking when the previous booking ends. It confirmed Mr X had followed that procedure since December 2017. It did not accept it had a responsibility to send him a block-booking form. It did not uphold the complaint about the booking on 6 January 2019.
  15. It accepted the Council had made an error in the booking on 13 January 2019 and apologised. It said that if Mr X could provide the details and contacts for the customers that he had lost directly because of the Council’s error on 13 January 2019 it would consider the matter further. It offered free venue hire for the date the Council made the error.
  16. The Council did not accept Mr X’s complaint about room hire on 3 February 2019. It stated he was told in the confirmation email that the sports hall would not be available on that date and the Business would be outside.
  17. Mr X continued to contact the Council. He said:
    • the Council’s error had lost him ten customers at a cost to his business of £414.23 each. He said the overall loss was £5384.00;
    • the Council owed him £1950 for his time in raising the complaint; and
    • the evidence the Council had asked for to prove the businesses loss of earnings, would breach his customers data protection.
  18. Mr X brought the complaint to the Ombudsman as he was unhappy with the Councils response to his complaint.

My findings

Failure to send a block booking form

  1. The Council operates a block-booking system which requires customers to complete a block-booking form. The Council was not responsible for sending Mr X a block-booking form, just because it had previously done this. It was the responsibility of Mr X to know when his booking would end, and to complete a new booking form. The Council was not at fault.

Failing to provide the sports hall on 6 January, 13 January and 13 February 2019

  1. When the Council received the block booking form on 3 January 2018, the sports hall was already booked on 6 January 2019. The Council was entitled to rent the room to other customers. Any block-booking is not confirmed until the Council sends a confirmation email. The Council was not at fault.
  2. The Council accepted it made an error on 13 January 2019, that meant Mr X was unable to use the sports hall. That was fault. However, it did not cause Mr X a significant injustice because it offered the use of an outside pitch which was an adequate alternative.
  3. In the confirmation email sent to Mr X on 9 January 2019, the Council said the sports hall was not available on 3 February 2019. The Council was entitled to rent the room to other users. The Council was not at fault.

Failure to respond to information requests in a timely manner

  1. The Council did not send Mr X the safeguarding policy or its complaints procedure, until he asked for it a second time. The complaints procedure and customer charter are available on the Council’s website, therefore Mr X could access it freely. In addition, the Council was in email contact with Mr X after he asked for this information, and there is nothing to indicate it was deliberately withholding information. Therefore, I fall short of finding this fault.
  2. Mr X’s safeguarding concerns were about the Council offering him use of the sports pitches on 13 January 2019. Although the Council was at fault for its booking error, the Council was not responsible for Mr X’s staff member’s decision to take the class outside.

Failure to resolve the complaint in a timely manner

  1. The Council initially reviewed Mr X’s complaint and tried to resolve it informally through a meeting. When Mr X expressed his dissatisfaction, the Council provided a stage one written response to his complaint within four days.
  2. The Council’s policy states it aims to complete stage two investigations within 15 working days. Mr X escalated his complaint with the Council on 4 April 2019. However, because of the lack of information provided on the complaint form and Mr X’s refusal to discuss the complaint with the investigating officer, the Council were not able to immediately identify what the substantive complaint was. That meant the Council did not start its investigation of Mr X’s complaint until 12 April 2019.
  3. The Council spoke to Mr X on 12 April 2019 and explained he would receive a response by 8 May 2019. That was with 15 working days. The Council was not at fault.

Failure to financially reimburse loss of earnings

  1. The Ombudsman can provide financial remedy when there has been a quantifiable loss. However, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to consider potential consequential loss. That is a matter for the Courts.
  2. Mr X said that the Council’s error on 13 January 2019 lost his business ten customers at a cost of £414 each. The Council has asked Mr X to provide evidence of the customers which left because of the booking error so it can consider its offer of a financial remedy. It stated the evidence provided by Mr X has failed to do that. The Council is entitled to make that decision. The Council was not at fault.
  3. If a customer has paid for a service and not received it, the Ombudsman would expect a refund to be an appropriate remedy. The Council offered Mr X alternative use of the sports pitch and did this free of charge. That remedies any injustice caused.
  4. The Ombudsman will consider a symbolic financial payment to complainants for their time and trouble, if there is evidence the Council has not acted or unnecessarily delayed in the handling of their complaint. The Council has responded to Mr X’s concerns in a timely manner. The Council failed to respond to an email on one occasion. I fall short of finding that omission fault.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Council’s leisure centre was at fault for a booking error that meant Mr X could not use the room he had booked. The Council has apologised and offered Mr X free use of the sports pitch as an alternative. That remedies any injustice caused. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings