Summary: Mr B complains about health and safety issues at a Council gym and the behaviour of staff working there. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says staff at a Council gym did not think of him and others with disabilities when it temporarily relocated a piece of gym equipment and that he was not treated well when he raised his concerns about the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 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)

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B is visually impaired. He attends a Council gym and raised his concerns with staff about the relocation of a piece of gym equipment which had been moved out into part of the walkway so a leak in the roof could be dealt with. Steps were taken to highlight the equipment before a more suitable location was found for it.
6. There was an exchange of words between Mr B and a staff member about this issue. The Council has described this as causing Mr B insult and embarrassment and the staff member says she was left feeling distressed that a customer had spoken to her in such an aggressive tone.
7. The Council considered Mr B’s complaint about the matter under its complaints procedure. It investigated the matter but decided not to take it further with either the staff member or Mr B beyond reminding all staff of the importance of good customer service and Mr B about standard gym etiquette.

Assessment

8. While I understand Mr B felt concerned for his safety, and that a member of staff had insulted him, the Council properly considered matters. Mr B may not be satisfied with the outcome but an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.
9. In responding to my draft decision Mr B said he felt the Council was treating him less favourably than everyone else because of his visual impairment and that insufficient consideration and risk assessment was being given to it. However, as Mr B is currently taking legal action against the Council for alleged breaches of the Equality Act 2010 where he is claiming it has failed to make reasonable adjustments for him and that he has been discriminated against because of his visual impairment, the restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to this issue and cannot be investigated by the Ombudsman.  

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman